Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rawtenstall Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARRESTS (MR. PATHIK AND MR. CHODHRI).

Mr. BAKER: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the president (Mr. Pathik) and the secretary (Mr. Chodhri) of the Society of Servants of Rajasthan have been arrested on the grounds of sedition; that Mr. Pathik is still awaiting trial, although arrested about eight months ago; that the society in question is nonviolent and law-abiding, and is formed for
the mutual service of villagers, and that peaceful and unarmed men and women have been suddenly attacked and beaten with lathis at Amergarh and twice fired on at Begun; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances which gave rise to these incidents?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): I am not at present in possession of official information in regard to all these matters; but I have seen a report that Mr. Pathik was arrested by the authorities of the Udaipur State in September last in connection with recent disturbances in that State and in Bundi. I understand that in both States the local troops and police forces had to repel attacks made by armed mobs, and that the disturbances were provoked by Mr. Pathik and other outside agitators. I observe that, in answer to a question on this subject in the Legislative Assembly on the 25th March, the Government of India promised to make inquiries into the circumstances of the arrests, and I will ask them to let me know the results of those inquiries.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Are native States themselves not perfectly entitled to withstand any attack?

COMMERCIAL EDUCATION.

Mr. BAKER: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what facilities are
open to the people of India to enable students to secure a training in industrial and commercial pursuits; and whether he will supply a list of the technical schools in India where a first-rate economic and commercial education can be obtained?

Mr. RICHARDS: Detailed information regarding facilities for industrial and commercial training provided in Government educational institutions in India is given in the Review of the Progress of Education in India, 1917–22, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. In the year 1921–22, 276 institutions of the kind were being maintained, with 14,082 students. A complete list of all these institutions could not he obtained without reference to each of the local Governments in India which are separately responsible for education.

Mr. BAKER: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether degrees in commerce and engineering are obtainable in India by Indian students; and, if so, whether there are any obstacles which prevent such qualified students practising their professions within British India?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second pail, in the negative.

BRITISH TROOPS (PAY).

Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the rates of pay of British service officers and men of the Army in India are based upon the rates in operation in the United Kingdom upon a basis of 2s. to the rupee and that the present rate of exchange is under 1s. 5d. to the rupee, the revision of pay on let July next will be based on the rate of exchange then in existence or on the 1s. 4d. rate?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am not yet, in a position to say how the exchange problem will be met in the revision of the pay of commissioned ranks, which is due on 1st July next. Other ranks at present receive in effect British rates converted at, 1s. 4d.

RAILWAY RISK NOTES REVISION COMMITTEE.

Mr. LANSBURY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when it is proposed to take action to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Railway Risk Notes
Revision Committee; and can he explain the reason for the delay in dealing with this subject?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Government of India stated in February last that the forms had been revised in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and that steps were being taken to introduce them.

RANI SAHEBA OF BASTAR.

Mr. LANSBURY: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that indignation prevails in Bastar State, Central Provinces, owing to the action of the political agent, who, contrary to the wishes of all concerned, has arranged the marriage of the Rani Saheba of Bastar, in Mayurbhanj State, in Orissa, with a son of a Girjadar, who is the cousin of the Maharajah; and why such an interference in the private personal affairs of the parties concerned has taken place?

Mr. RICHARDS: My Noble Friend has no information to the effect indicated in the question, but he will make inquiry.

CURRENCY.

Mr. SCURR: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps the Government propose to take to meet the demand of the people of India to transfer the funds standing to the credit of the gold standard reserve in London to India?

Mr. RICHARDS: The reserve is at present held in the form of sterling investments which could not suitably be held elsewhere than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. SCURR: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the Indian merchants have demanded that the Indian Currency Act should he amended by substituting the rate of exchange to be 1s. 6d. instead of 2s., what steps is it proposed to take in the matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the views of the Indian Merchants' Chamber, Bombay, advocating the restoration of the pre-War rating of the rupee at 1s. 4d. gold. The Government of India have explained at length in a letter dated the 25th January to the chamber their reasons for holding that in the existing uncertainty
of world economic conditions it would be inexpedient to make any immediate attempt to fix the future gold value of the rupee. My Noble Friend concurs in this view.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Indian Government failed to maintain the rupee at 2s., and, that being so, would he ask the hon. Gentleman who put the question, how he would propose to maintain the rupee at 1s, 6d., seeing that the natural balance of trade even now only maintains the rupee at 1s. 4½d.?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for the Minister to question an hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that opinion in India favours the establishment of a gold standard and the opening of the Mint for providing gold coinage; and whether he will state the intentions of the Government in regard to these matters?

Mr. RICHARDS: While the effective restoration of the gold standard is the objective of Government policy, economic conditions throughout the world have not yet reached a degree of 'normality which would justify at present an attempt to stabilise the gold value of the rupee. In present circumstances, owing to the existing premium on gold in India, the question of the internal circulation of gold currency does not arise.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that gold has been pouring into India for tens of centuries, and that it is always made into ornaments, and disappears from circulation? Is he aware that a drain of gold to India would injure our own gold reserves, sinking into the quick-sands of India without going into circulation as currency? What then would be the use of coining gold?

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Merchants' Chamber and Bureau of Bombay suggested to the Government that at least 17 crores of rupees worth of currency notes should be issued as emergency currency to meet the seasonal demands at 5 per cent., 5½ per cent., and 6 per cent. instead of 12 crores of rupees only at 6 per cent., 7 per cent., and 8 per cent.; why
that suggestion was not adopted; and what are the intentions of the Government for the future?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to take any steps, and, if so, what steps will be taken, to prevent a recurrence of a great stringency in the money market in India leading to a rise in the bank rate of interest from 4 per cent. to 9 per cent., and to a consequent demoralisation in the trade and industries of that country?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am aware that in April, 1923, when the note circulation was about 170 crores of rupees, the Indian Merchants' Chamber, Bombay, suggested that additional currency should be issuable up to 10 per cent. of the note issue at rates varying from 6 to 7 per cent. The actual decisions embodied in the Paper Currency Amendment Act and rules thereunder were taken after careful consideration of the views of various representative bodies in India. In addition to expanding the currency up to 12 crores of rupees against commercial bills, a further expansion of 12 crores was effected this busy season against sterling securities in London, making a total expansion of 24 crores this winter. The important problem referred to in these questions is being carefully watched by the Government of India.

Mr. SAMUEL: With regard to Question 41, am I to understand that the Secretary of State for India acquiesces in the statement in the hon. Member's question that there is disaster in the trade and industries of India? Is he not aware that the total of the trade in and out of India is now higher than ever it was, except in the boom years of 1919, 1920 and 1921? Is there any ground for the implication contained in the question, No. 41?

Mr. RICHARDS: There is no demoralisation.

RAILWAYS (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Mr. SCURR: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, what action, if any, has been taken to give effect to the decision of the Government of India on the resolution passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly for taking over, under State management, the East Indian
and Great Indian Peninsular Railways from their respective companies on the expiry of their present terms of lease?

Mr. RICHARDS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Sir C. Yate) on the 10th March last.

MILITARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the resolutions passed at the Maratha Educational Conference, held at Morsi, in the Berars, on the 21st April, calling upon the Government to establish military schools for the education of fighting races with accommodation for Maratha youths, etc.; and whether he will consider the advisability of urging the Government of India to take action on the lines proposed?

Mr. RICHARDS: On the information as yet available, my Noble Friend is unable to form any opinion on the proposal.

ARMY (INDIANISATION).

Mr. R. JACKSON: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to reconsider the question of the Indianisation of the superior ranks of the Indian Army?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to reconsider the question of the Indianisation of the superior ranks of the Indian Army?

Mr. RICHARDS: The process of Indianisation of the superior ranks of the Indian Army which was recently inaugurated is not yet sufficiently advanced to make it necessary to consider what form the later stages are likely to take.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Committee appointed by the Government of India to go into the question of the working of the reforms has yet reported; and, if so, whether a copy of the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Mr. RICHARDS: My Noble Friend understands that the Committee of Inquiry which has been appointed by the Government of India has completed the preliminary stages of the work, that is to say, the investigation of the legal and constitutional practicability of action under the Government of India Act, and that the Government are now in a. position to proceed to the next stage, namely, to consider what recommendations, if any, can be made for action within these lines. My Noble Friend has not received the Report of the conclusions arrived at in this preliminary stage, which must be of a purely formal character, nor would he consider it useful to lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House. The House will be fully informed in due course of any material results of the Inquiry that may affect considerations of policy.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand that it is the intention of the Government to provide the House with the Report at the earliest convenience at some later date, and is it their intention to give a copy of this Report to the Standing Joint Committee?

Mr. RICHARDS: The question refers to the inquiries that have been already completed, and the answer to that is there would be no useful purpose in laying a copy of the Report upon the Table.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the case that one of the functions of the Standing Joint Committee is to consider and report on any proposed changes?

Earl WINTERTON: How are we to understand the further Report which is going to be published unless we see this Report, on which the further Report is to be founded?

Mr. RICHARDS: I think the Noble Lord had better wait until he sees the Report.

Earl WINTERTON (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact, that the published forms of reference of the Committee set up by the Government of India to inquire into the working of the Government of India Act includes the power to recommend amendments to that Act in order to rectify administrative imperfections, he can state if the Com-
mittee will report to the Viceroy or the Secretary of State, and whether there is any precedent for entrusting to an official Committee, which has on it no Member of this House or of another place, the duty of suggesting alterations in an Act of Parliament?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the Noble Lord's question is that the Committee will report to the Government of India, by whom it will be appointed. As regards the second part, the terms of reference to this Committee were closely foreshadowed in the speeches of Sir Malcolm Hailey in the Legislative Assembly on the 8th and lath February, the relevant extracts from which were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House of 3rd March. It was then indicated as possible that the proposed inquiry might "show that some changes are required in the structure of the Act in order to rectify definite and ascertained defects experienced in actual working," as distinct from changes involving amendment of the Constitution. I have had no time to search for actual precedents, but I have little doubt that alterations in Acts of Parliament have frequently been, and will frequently be, suggested by Committees containing no Member of either House of Parliament.

Earl WINTERTON: Am I to understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the constitution of the Committee was foreshadowed in the speech which he made in this House in March?

Mr. RICHARDS: No; I said the terms of reference.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Are not the terms of reference somewhat wider than the hon. Member foreshadowed in his former speech?

Sir H. CRAIK: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this Report will be submitted to the Joint Committee, which was established for the purpose of considering such questions?

Mr. RICHARDS: I think we had better wait for the Report.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to give Notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Mr. LINFIELD: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action, if any, the Government proposes to take on the Report of the North-West Frontier Committee; and whether this Report was received from the Government of India in 1922?

Mr. RICHARDS: My Noble Friend is awaiting the proposals of the Government of India on this matter, and I am, therefore, not in a position to answer the first part of the, question. The Report was first received here in December, 1922.

TAXATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. LINFIELD: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken by the Government of India for the appointment of the proposed Committee of Inquiry on Central and Provincial Taxation; who are the Members of that Committee; and what are the Terms of Reference?

Mr. RICHARDS: The intention of the Government of India is to constitute the Committee in the autumn. It will be constituted as follows:

Chairman:
Sir Charles Todhunter, I.C.S.

Members:
Sir Percy Thompson, Deputy-Chairman of the British Board of Inland Revenue.
The Maharajadhiraja Bahadur of Burdwan.
Dr. R. P. Paranjpye, Professor of the Fergusson College, Poona.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Terms of Reference, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Term of Reference are as follow:

(1) To examine the manner in which the burden of taxation is distributed at present between the different classes of the population.
(2) To consider whether the whole scheme of taxation—central, provincial and local—is equitable and in accordance with economic principles and, if not, in what respects it is defective.
(3) To report on the suitability of alternative sources of taxation.
(4) To advise as to the machinery required for the imposition, assessment and collection of taxes, old and new.
11
(5) To prepare rough estimates of the financial effects of the proposals.
(6) To include in the inquiry consideration of the land revenue only so far as is necessary for a comprehensive survey of existing conditions.

CHELSEA PENSIONERS.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the letter addressed to him by the president of the European Association of Calcutta, on 5th April last, regarding the difficult conditions under which Chelsea pensioners are residing in India; and if he can state what action is being taken in the matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have brought the association's letter to the notice of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to whom any further inquiries should be addressed.

Sir C. YATE: Can the Under-Secretary say whether he can do anything to help these military pensioners?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my answer.

ASSAM (RECRUITMENT OF LABOUR).

Mr. SNELL: 45.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in the recruitment of emigrants from the ceded districts of Madras for the Assam Tea Estates, no agreements are given to employés, the agents at the depot are only expected to read a questionnaire to the intending emigrants and to take their thumb impressions, and a male coolie who has worked or been in a tea garden for only 15 days can become a sirdar or a female coolie a sirdarini by undertaking to recruit coolies; and whether he will take steps to secure the publication of the questionnaire referred to and the avoidance of abuses in the matter of such recruitment?

Mr. RICHARDS: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me regarding the particular cases and questionnaire which he has in mind, the matter can be inquired into, but I do not at present fully understand the nature of the abuses which he apprehends in free recruitment of the kind which he describes.

Mr. SNELL: 46.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, under the Assam Emigration
Act (No. VI. of 1901), the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act (No. XIII. of 1859, amended in 1920), and Section 492 of the Indian Penal Code, a workman can be compelled to work for an employer with whom he has made an agreement for service, and that in case of refusal he may be punished with imprisonment as a criminal offender; that by an agreement entered into by members of the planters' association in Assam all labourers living within the area of a particular garden are considered coolies of that garden, and the employment of labourers of one garden by another is prohibited under penalties, and that an outsider makes himself liable for prosecution for trespass if he should approach a labourer on any tea garden in Assam, thus making it impossible to start any agency for social, religious, or educational work without the express permission of the managers of the tea gardens; and whether he will take steps to secure the repeal of the Acts referred to and the enactment of legislation regulating the conditions of life and work on tea gardens in India, and for the proper inspection of such conditions?

Mr. RICHARDS: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

The penal provisions of the Assam Labour and Emigration Act have been withdrawn. Under the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act as amended in 1920 a workman who has received an advance of money on account, of work which he has contracted to perform and is proved to have refused without reasonable excuse to perform it, may in the discretion of the magistrate be ordered to do so or to repay the advance or part of it, and may be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding three months if he fail to comply with the order. Section 492 of the Indian Penal Code provides a penalty of one month's imprisonment or fine for unreasonable refusal to perform work contracted for at a place to which the workman has been conveyed at another person's expense. I am not aware of any prohibition of the freedom of movement and employment in Assam such as is suggested in the second part of the question. As regards the third part of
the question, the Government of India have decided to repeal the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act with effect from 1st April, 1926. The question of Section 492 of the Penal Code, which I understand is rarely used, has also been under consideration, and my Noble Friend will inquire how the matter stands

LORD OLIVIER (LETTER).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the letter written by the Secretary of State for India to Mr. Satyamurthi, a Swarajist member of the Madras Legislative Council; and whether this letter was published with the, consent of the Secretary of State?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative and to the second that my noble Friend's consent was neither asked, granted nor refused.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not the proper channel for such a communication through the Government of India, and can the hon. Gentleman state whether there is any precedent for an important communication of policy being made by the Secretary of State for India in such an unorthodox manner?

Mr. RICHARDS: I do not understand that there is anything in the letter beyond what was stated by Noble Friend in his speech in another place.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the new policy announced by the Secretary of State cuts at the root of representation under the existing Statute, and should not an important new declaration of policy of that kind be made in this House rather than to a private individual in India?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that Mr. Satyamurthi is an extreme cooperator, and how can he come under the definition of the Secretary of State when he said the Government would cooperate with those who were willing to co-operate with them?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is not this precisely one of the points which was referred to the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, upon which a Report was made, and before any change of policy is made
by the Secretary of State should not the question be again referred to that Joint Committee? I ask the hon. Member to make a statement on that point.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that there is another question on this subject.

Sir H. CRAIK: It is quite different.

Earl WINTERTON: My question is not on the same subject.

Sir H. CRAIK: I ask the Under-Secretary for a distinct statement of policy on this point.

Mr. RICHARDS: If hon. Members will read the speech which my Noble Friend made in February, they will find all their points mentioned.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that this very question dealt with in the letter was decided in a particular way by the Joint Committee, and that the decision still prevails?

Viscount CURZON: Before any action is taken to change the policy, will it be again referred to the Joint Committee? Upon that point the hon. Gentleman has not replied.

Mr. RICHARDS: I have nothing to add to my answer.

Earl WINTERTON: I give the hon. Gentleman notice that, in view of the difficulty of extracting any information from him on this point, I shall endeavour to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess.

CAWNPORE CONSPIRACY TRIAL.

Earl WINTERTON: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Judge's decision in the Cawnpore conspiracy trial has been given?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Judge has convicted Muzaffar Ahmad, Shaukat Usmani, Range and Nalini Gupta and sentenced them each to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The charge against Gulam Husain was withdrawn. Proceedings against Singaravelu Chettiar were suspended owing to his ill health; and his request to be tried in Madras or Bombay is being considered.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the hon. Gentleman come to any decision with
regard to the question I placed last week, whether, in view of the great interest taken in this House and in India, he will publish a White Paper showing the ramifications of this case, and the fund from which the defence was paid?

Mr. RICHARDS: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. LANSBURY: In publishing that White Paper, will the hon. Gentleman also publish the evidence upon which these men were convicted?

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand that if I put a question down next week the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a definite answer?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will endeavour to give an answer.

FOREST SERVICE (PROBATIONERS).

Mr. RAWLINSON: 49 and 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether any, and what, new arrangements have been made, or are proposed, for the selection of probationers for the Indian forest service; and whether graduates of any university will still continue to be eligible for selection without further conditions being imposed;
(2) whether any new arrangements have been made, or are proposed, for the training of probationers for the Indian forest. service; whether such probationers will still continue to be able to be trained at any university having a forestry department, or whether they will be compelled to be trained at Oxford; and, if so, whether an opportunity of discussing the question in the House will be given before any such regulation comes into force?

Mr. RICHARDS: The question of the training of forest probationers has been under consideration for some time, but this is closely connected with the question of the future of the service. Recommendations on this subject have been made by the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Lee, whose report will be published to-morrow. Until these recommendations have been considered by the Government of India, my Noble Friend is unable to make any statement.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Up to the present has any alteration been made in the existing state of affairs, first as regards
selected candidates, and, secondly, as regards their training, because large sums of money appear to have been spent upon them?

Mr. RICHARDS: No.

Sir H. CRAIK: Has any Regulation been made confining the training of these candidates to the University of Oxford to the exclusion of other Universities?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am not aware of it.

Mr. J. JONES: May I ask if there is ever going to be any alteration, and are we always going to keep on in the same old way?

Mr. RAWLINSON: If I put down a question a week hence, will the Under-Secretary endeavour to give me an answer?

Mr. RICHARDS: Yes, I will endeavour to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — OTTOMAN DEBT.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of the French Government in regard to the rights of the Ottoman debt bondholders since their occupation of Syria?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Ponsonby): My right hon. Friend is unable to attend to-day, owing to official duties, and he has asked me to reply.
I regret that His Majesty's Government have no information as to the attitude of the French Government in this matter.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the Under-Secretary can find out whether the English holders are treated in the same way as the French holders?

Mr. PONSONBY: I will ask my right hon. Friend about that.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand from the Under-Secretary's reply that this Government is going to make direct representation to the Turkish Government, not in concert with the French Government, and is it not much better that the Allies as a whole should act together in this matter, rather than act separately?

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the
Turkish Government have modified the status of the public debt without consultation with the bondholders, and that this action in effect repudiates the degree of Mohurran; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. PONSONBY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that negotiations on the matter are still proceeding between the Council for the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt and the Turkish Government. Should these negotiations prove unsuccessful, His Majesty's Government will consider, in concert with the other Governments concerned, what action it may be desirable to take with a view to the protection of the interests involved.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the fact that no provision has been made in the Turkish Budget of this year for the service of this debt, and at the same time the assigned resources are being eaten away?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (TRADE AND FINANCIAL NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any details in the possession of the Foreign Office in regard to trade and financial negotiations with Russia which have resulted from the recognition of the Russian Soviet Government; and whether he can give details of any projected scheme of financial benefit to this country which is in process of development and which was initiated from the recognition of the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 14th May by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for the Epping Division (Sir L. Lyle).

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).

Mr. HANNON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to indicate at what date the Government intend to introduce
a Bill enabling them to appoint a Committee to deal with the disposal of the Boxer Indemnity?

Mr. PONSONBY: The Bill is to be introduced to-day. The Second Reading will be taken on Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BESSARABIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a treaty was signed at Odessa on 18th March, 1918, and confirmed later at Jassy, between Dr. Rakovsky, on behalf of Soviet Russia. and General Averescu, on behalf of Rumania, in the presence of the late J. W. Boyle, Lieutenant-Colonel in His Majesty's Army; that this treaty laid clown that the occupation of Bessarabia by Rumanian troops was temporary and pledged Rumania to the withdrawal of her Army within two months, 10,000 soldiers only being left to guard Rumanian military stores; if he is aware that Monsieur Anion, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Rumanian Government, admitted the existence of this treaty in the Rumanian Parliament in July, 1918; and whether His Majesty's Government was aware of this treaty when it was agreed to recognise the Rumanian annexation of Bessarabia?

Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to all points is in the affirmative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What, then, is the present position in regard to the alleged British recognition of the annexation of Bessarabia by Rumania? Is there a treaty, or what is the position?

Mr. PONSONBY: I shall require notice of that question.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that His Majesty's Government rightly considered the geographical position of Bessarabia in this connection as well as the proportion of Roumanian population which it contained?

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the move made by the Austrian Government with regard to visas; and
whether any suggestion of the same kind is being considered by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have no information except what has appeared in the Press.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not this a very excellent scheme well worthy of being copied, seeing that it saves hundreds of wasted hours and visits?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am making inquiries into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Viscount CURZON: 24.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the state of unemployment, any efforts are being made by the Government Departments concerned to deal with the question of railway level crossings over main arterial roads, with a view to doing away with them wherever possible?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to reply. I recognise that such crossings are a hindrance to traffic, and, on that ground, am anxious to get them abolished wherever possible. Schemes for this purpose are eligible for grants from the Road Fund or, at present, from the Unemployment Grants Committee. Assistance has been given in many cases.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is the Minister himself taking any active steps in this matter?

Mr. GOSLING: Oh, yes.

Viscount CURZON: Has assistance been given in certain cases, and will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether any amount of work has resulted from such assistance?

Mr. GOSLING: Beyond what I have said? If the Noble Lord has any particular case in mind, and will bring it before me I shall look into it.

JUVENILE CENTRES.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the present grant to local education authorities of 100 per cent. of the cost of juvenile unemployment centres for young persons
between the ages of 16 and 18 will be continued in the case of similar educational facilities provided by the local education authorities for children between the ages of 14 and 16 under Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill; and whether he can say what educational facilities are to be provided, and by whom, under Section 11 of the Bill and from what source the 50 per cent. of expenditure not provided for in that Section will be derived?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The 100 per cent. grant is already applicable to children between the ages of 14 and 16 as well as to those between 16 and 18 years of age, and there is no intention to discontinue this grant during the period up to 1st April, 1925, for which it has been promised. The Unemployment Insurance Bill does not propose to set up educational facilities directly what it does is to recognise the advantage which the Unemployment Fund would derive from appropriate centres for unemployed boys and girls by offering to make a grant towards the cost of such centres. No such grant has hitherto been payable out of the Unemployment Fund. The question how the remainder of the cost is to be borne is one which will have to be dealt with separately when the 100 per cent. grant comes to an end.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be better and cheaper to keep these children at school until the age of 15?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is not a question for my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURNEY AIESHIP SCHEME.

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Burney airship scheme received the approval of the recent Imperial Conference; and whether, before arriving at a decision to abandon it, the Dominions were consulted in the matter?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The only resolution passed by the Imperial Conference in this regard was that His Majesty's Government should circulate regular up-to-date information respecting the progress of this scheme, in order that consideration of Empire par-
ticipation might be facilitated. The necessary steps are being taken to this end. In these circumstances, the second part of the question does not arise.

Viscount CURZON: Do I understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Dominions were or were not consulted before the Government decision was arrived at?

Mr. CLYNES: My answer to the first part of the Member's question obviates the second part arising.

Oral Answers to Questions — POISON GAS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government have made any proposals to, or received any proposals from, other Governments with the object of preventing the use of poison gas in future warfare?

Mr. CLYNES: This question was the subject of Article V of the Treaty signed at Washington on 6th February, 1922, the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan. The Assembly of the League of Nations have requested a special committee to prepare a report on the effects of chemical discoveries in the case of war. The committee has not yet reported.

Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee is likely to report?

Mr. CLYNES: At present I am not able to say.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. LAMBERT: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the vital importance of our export trade, he will appoint a small but competent body to inquire into the high cost of the production of British goods destined for oversea markets; and whether these high costs are due to regulations made by employers or workers to high internal taxation, to high transport charges, or other causes?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gale to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) on the 22nd May. The
particular points mentioned in the question will be borne in mind in settling the terms of reference to the Committee then announced.

Mr. LAMBERT: When is this Committee likely to begin to function?

Mr. CLYNES: Steps are being taken to hasten its work.

Mr. HANNON: In point of fact, is not the high cost of production mainly due to the high wages paid in this country?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not due to the very high rate of profits in industry?

Mr. CLYNES: These questions raise a large issue that cannot be dealt with by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (UNITED STATES).

Mr. OWEN: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington a report as to the results of prohibition in the United States of America; and, if so, will he arrange for its publication and its distribution to Members?

Mr. CLYNES: No report has been received from His Majesty's Embassy at Washington on this subject since that laid as a White Paper, United States No. 1, 1923, in July of last year. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHELDT (FORTIFICATIONS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 31.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Dutch fortifications on the Scheldt, which were erected prior to the War, proved an obstacle to the efficient help we could render Belgium in fulfilment of our treaty obligations, whether in any future negotiations he will raise the question of the passage of armed forces through narrow fortified waters, as in the Scheldt and the entrances to the Baltic, being allowed when authorised by the League of Nations?

Mr. CLYNES: The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member raises many complicated and controversial questions, but, should an opportunity arise, the point will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE (ROYAL COMMISSIONERS).

Sir K. WOOD: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the names of the members of the Royal Commission which is about to inquire into National Insurance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on 6th May.

Sir K. WOOD: Could the hon. Gentleman state the form of that Commission, and whether or not friendly society and insurance society representatives will be appointed on it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: At the moment I cannot say anything about the character of the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

REPARATION COMMISSION.

Mr. LAMBERT: 33.
asked the Prime Minister if he can announce the acceptance by the German Government, of the conclusions arrived at by the expert Committee on German Reparations?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the right hon. Member to the letter dated 16th April, in which the German Government informed the Reparation Commission that they, too, considered that the experts' reports offered a practical basis for the rapid solution of the reparation problem, and in which they, therefore, declared their willingness to collaborate in the execution of the experts' plan. The letter was published and appeared in the newspapers of the 17th April.

GERMANY (MERCHANT SHIPS).

Viscount CURZON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that merchant ships now being built in Germany, especially those ships being built with Diesel engines, are being designed with a view to eventual military use in respect of protection of buoyancy, provision for additional motors and semi-immersion emplacement for guns, and provision for carrying aircraft; whether he is aware that the new German liners "Ballin" and "Deutschland" are fitted with
elaborate bulges; whether these fittings, etc., are in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles; and whether His Majesty's Government can give the matter their consideration?

Mr. CLYNES: His Majesty's Government are not in possession of any evidence to show that the German Government are infringing the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in this respect.

Viscount CURZON: Will the Government direct attention to the points alluded to in the question, and to the last part in respect to the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. CLYNES: If the Noble Lord has any evidence that will help the Government in this matter we shall be glad to receive it.

DISARMAMENT (GERMANY).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the German military forces are now in excess of the strength allowed under the Treaty of Versailles; and whether the German Government have carried out the requirements of the Treaty as regards the abolition of the great German general staff and similar organisations?

Mr. CLYNES: To the best of my information the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, so far as the regular German military forces are concerned. As regards the latter part of the question, the great German general staff has been abolished and there is now a single Ministry of Defence which, however, includes a general staff section.

Sir F. HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the words "the regular German military forces," does he mean the troops that have now been provided are not in excess of the Versailles Treaty?

Mr. CLYNES: The Government are far from being satisfied with respect to the point covered in the first part of my answer.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get in touch with the German Government to see that they carry out the most important. Clauses; and what steps do the Government intend to take to see that the Treaty in enforced?

Mr. CLYNES: The terms of the second part of my reply raise a point of law which I am unable at the moment to answer.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it comes about that the Government are the only people who do not know these facts?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are not many socalled patriotic societies running a regular military control in Germany?

Mr. CLYNES: That is covered by the first part of my reply.

COLOGNE ZONE (BRITISH MILITARY OCCUPATION).

Sir F. HALL: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the British military occupation of the Cologne zone until the terms of the Versailles Treaty are fully carried out?

Mr. CLYNES: It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to conform to the provisions of Part XIV of the Treaty of Versailles, which regulates the occupation by the Allies of German territory.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been practically a violation of the Treaty terms with regard to the disarmament of the German Army, and does ho not think steps should be taken to bring this home forcibly to the German Government?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a supplementary question which raises many points of opinion.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what date the period of occupation laid down in the Treaty began to run?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Mr. POTTS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes introducing a Minimum Wage Amendment Bill applicable to the mining industry; and, if so, can he state approximately the date of such introduction?

Mr. CLYNES: I have every hope that a settlement of the present dispute in
the coal mining industry will be reached without further intervention on the part of the Government.

Mr. POTTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agreement, if accepted on the lines suggested, will not give the men any better wage, and, having regard to the factors of the case, are not the Government prepared to introduce a Minimum Wage Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not assuming that any settlement that may be reached in respect of the pending wage claim will permanently settle questions in the coal mining industry.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the minimum wage question is a different question altogether from that which is being negotiated now?

Mr. CLYNES: It is for that reason that the terms of my answer have been so framed.

Major COLFOX: Have the Government given any definite promise to any of those concerned in this matter?

Mr. BATEY: Why not?

Mr. CLYNES: No promise except that which has already been made public.

Mr. POTTS: Is it not a fact that, in reply to a question of my own, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to introduce a Minimum Wage Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: It is a fact, and my reply refers to the relation of that promise to the pending wage settlement.

Mr. BECKER: Is not this another cast, of a broken pledge?

Mr. HARDIE: Would the Government, when dealing with this question, take into consideration the 10½ million tons of wasted coal which, if sent abroad, would meet the demand of the miners for a maximum wage?

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (SHAUKAT ALI AND DR. KITCHLEW).

ILLNESS OF MR THOMAS.

Sir C. YATE: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state the result of his communication with the Governor of Ceylon regarding the statements made by Shaukat Ali and Dr.
Kitchlew in which they described English statesmen as damned liars and hypocrites, and stated that a lakh of Englishmen did not require much killing; and what action is to be taken in the matter?

Mr. LUNN: I regret to inform the House that my right hon. Friend has been taken ill rather suddenly. I hope it is not serious. I have to apologise for his absence, and I have been asked to take his questions.
The Secretary of State has received a Report from the Governor, who states that he fully considered the matter prior to the arrival in Ceylon of these persons, whose chief object appeared to be to collect funds, and decided that no action should be taken to prevent their landing in the Colony. They have now left the Colony, and the Governor states that the political effect of their visit has been extremely small. The Secretary of State sees no reason to take any further action in the matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if these statements were made before he took office?

Mr. LUNN: I think I should explain that these answers were drafted for my right hon. Friend, and have been just handed to me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that they were certainly made before he took office?

BRITISH GUIANA (TRADE COMMISSIONER).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has agreed to the appointment of a Trade Commissioner in London for the Colony of British Guiana; whether any appointment has yet been made; where the office will be situated; and what will be the annual cost of maintaining it?

Mr. LUNN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The office would, no doubt, be established in London, and the Secretary of State understands that the Combined Court has voted £2,000 to cover salary, office expenses and all incidental expenses.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it intended that this post—which, presumably, is partly under the hon. Gentleman's Department—shall be filled by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the actual conditions in British Guiana, and appointed practically from the Colony?

Mr. LUNN: I will mention that to my right hon. Friend.

MALTA (LANDING REGULATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it is that Austrian, German, and Turkish subjects, who arrive at Malta in passenger vessels staying for a few hours, are not allowed to land and see the island as in the case of other passengers on board?

Mr. LUNN: The Secretary of State was not aware of the existence of this restriction, and he will ask the Governor to report on the matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to let me know the result?

Mr. LUNN: Yes, Sir.

NAURU.

Mr. BLACK: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in accordance with his promise, he has sent forward the inquiries put with regard to the administration of the Island of Nauru; whether any explanation in reply has been received; and whether he can give full information with respect to the conditions under which Chinese labour is now employed on the island?

Mr. LUNN: In accordance with his undertaking given on 3rd March, to which, I understand, the hon. Member refers, the Secretary of State sent the Report of the Debate of that date to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Austria for communication to his Ministers, He did not undertake, and he does not propose, to ask the Australian Government for any reply to the strictures on their administration. He is not aware that the information given to the House on the conditions of labour in Nauru has been deficient.

Mr. BLACK: Cannot the Minister give the information asked for in regard to the actual facts now obtaining in the Island of Nauru?

Mr. LUNN: I would suggest that my hon. Friend put down a further question as to that.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman let the House know the conditions of employment of the Chinese on this island, and the wages paid to them?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. HANNON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that planting and other industries in Trinidad and British Guiana are cancelling orders which they had intended to place in Great Britain for machinery and other supplies on account of the attitude of the Home Government on the question of Imperial Preference; whether any communications in this sense have been received at the Colonial Office from the West Indies; and whether any representations have been made to the Colonial Office by manufacturers in this country?

Mr. LUNN: The answer to each part of this question is in the negative.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my hon. Friend—within the purview of whose Department this question comes—whether he has received any representations from the West Indies as to difficulties anticipated in view of the fact that they are not getting a fair share of preference in this country?

Mr. LUNN: I am not aware, but will ascertain.

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will undertake to inform this House, as soon as His Majesty's Government arrive at a decision, of the nature of the instructions to be sent to the official members of the Jamaica Legislative Council in regard to the attitude to be adopted by them upon the proposal of the elected members to reduce the preference granted to Great Britain, and to obtain leave to negotiate reciprocity agreements with other countries; and whether His Majesty's Government will instruct the Governor of
Jamaica to procure, if possible, the adjournment of the discussion of these proposals by the council until the final decision of Parliament in regard to the sugar preference shall be known?

Mr. LUNN: The Secretary of State for the Colonies has just received by telegraph the text of a Resolution adopted by the Legislative Council of Jamaica, stating that the Council views with concern the proposals in the Budget as affecting tariff preferences granted to the Colonies, and indicating the possibility of a reconstruction of the Jamaica tariff on lines which would deprive this country of the preference now existing. A copy of the Resolution will be placed in the Library of the House. No instructions were sent as to the attitude of the official members.

Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the reply received from the Colonies on these subjects coincides with throwing our markets open to German and other competition?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Colonial Office the course indicated in the last part of the question, that is to say, that an endeavour be made to secure that the effective Debate on this proposal in the Council should be postponed until the final decision is reached by this Government? Might not suggestions in that sense be communicated to the Governor, and also in the case of British Guiana?

Mr. LUNN: I will bring that observation before my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. HALL: Do not the hon. Gentle man and the Government think it better to give preference to foreigners?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate.

GOLD COAST (DIAMOND MINING).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to sanction the ordinance which has been introduced into the Gold Coast Colony at the instance of parties interested in the local diamond mining industry, and which prevents the winning and selling of diamonds by the native inhabitants of that Colony?

Mr. LUNN: The ordinance to which the hon. Member refers has not yet reached the Secretary of State. When it does, he will give due consideration to the point which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. HARRIS: May I present the hon. Gentleman with a copy of the ordinance?

TANGANYIKA (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).

Mr. BROWN: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the aggregate expenditure in Tanganyika for the years 1918–19 to 1923–24, inclusive, ordinary, extraordinary, and capital; and the revenue for the same period?

Mr. LUNN: The totals for the six years mentioned are: Expenditure, £8,118,348; Revenue, £5,542,101. The actual figures for 1923–24 have not yet been received, but the estimates for that year have been adopted in these totals.

Mr. BECKER: Does the hon. Gentleman hope to get a report about this harbour in the near future?

Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman consider how to get rid of some of these pensioners who are living upon the exploitation of the Colony?

IRELAND (LAND PURCHASE).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the 1923 Land Purchase Act in Ireland is being held up owing to the Bill guaranteeing the principal and interest not having been brought forward; whether he has had any conversations with Mr. Blythe on the subject; and when is it proposed to introduce the Bill to this House?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, my right hon. Friend has not himself had any conversations with Mr. Blythe on the subject, but I have recently discussed the matter with Mr. Blythe, and it is hoped that the Bill will be ready for introduction shortly.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: When is it proposed to take the Money Resolutions?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not tell the hon. and gallant Member off-hand, but if he will repeat his question in a week's time, I think a definite statement can be made.

EAST AFRICAN COTTON (FREIGHT RATE).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present rate of freight on cotton from East Africa as compared with the similar rates of freight from other countries from which we draw our supplies of cotton?

Mr. LUNN: The Secretary of State understands that the freight to the United Kingdom on cotton shipped from the ports mentioned is as follows, the basis being the measurement ton of 40 cubic feet:
Kilindini, 50s., less 10 per cent., or 45s.
West. Africa, 40s.
Beira (including shipping charges at the port), 31s. The Secretary of State has not exact figures for other places, but, from Port. Sudan the rate appears to be about 35s.; from the West Indies, 50s.; from Australia, 65s.; and from India, 25s.

EAST AND WEST AFRICA (COMMISSIONS).

Sir W. de FRECE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state the names of the Chairmen of the Commissions which are to visit East and West Africa; the names of any members actually appointed: and the general plan of investigations?

Mr. LUNN: The Secretary of State is not yet able to add to his reply to the hon. Member's question of the 12th of May.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has had any further communications with the authorities of the British Empire. Exhibi-
tion and the other parties concerned with a view to insisting on satisfactory labour conditions being observed; and whether he is now satisfied that such conditions will be maintained for the various classes of workers employed at the exhibition?

Mr. LUNN: I have had several discussions during the past week with various parties concerned with the conditions of employment at the British Empire Exhibition, and I am glad to he able to inform the hon. Member that there appears to he every likelihood of the setting up of a representative works council, which will be in a position to investigate any complaints which may be made, and which, I trust, will be able to dispose of them in a manner satisfactory to all parties.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will there he women on that Council?

Mr. LUNN: That has not been considered.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider it?

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the proposed works council cover the catering trade?

Mr. LUNN: At the first meeting we had a guarantee or assurance from Messrs. Lyons that they will be represented.

COMMERCIAL ATTACHES (VISITS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what specific invitations have been given to British commercial attaches to visit the British Empire Exhibition; and how many have expressed their intention of coming to London?

Mr. LUNN: In arranging the visits of commercial diplomatic officers and trade commissioners to the United Kingdom this year, the desirability of giving as many officers as possible the opportunity of visiting the British Empire Exhibition was borne in mind. It is anticipated that 10 commercial diplomatic officers and two trade commissioners will be enabled to view the Exhibition. In addition, it is probable that a certain number of commercial diplomatic officers situated in Europe will be in England on short leave. Such will receive four days in addition to their ordinary leave to enable them to visit the Exhibition, and a circular has been issued to the service to that effect.

HYDE PARK (SUNK GARDEN).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 79.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what has been the cost of filling in the sunk garden, with stone fountain in centre, at the east end of Hyde Park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): The cost of the work at the sunk garden, Hyde Park, has been, approximately, £950.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why was this large expenditure undertaken, considering that the sunk garden was a picturesque feature in the landscape?

Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Gentleman had better ask my predecessor, who ordered it.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself approved of this larger expenditure, whoever ordered it?

STREET LIGHTHOUSE REFUGES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 80.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the design of the miniature lighthouses, with blinking green eyes, which have recently been erected in front of Buckingham Palace, was submitted to and approved by the recently established Fine Art Commission; and, if not, will he indicate why it was not so referred; and what was the cost of the lighthouses?

Mr. JOWETT: The refuges in question are temporary and of a purely experimental character. The experiments are being conducted, in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, in the interests of the safety of the public. The Fine Art Commission has not been consulted, but the question of the design and type of permanent refuge is under consideration.

Sir W. DAVISON: What is the reason for these eyes to blink both by day and by night, and is this not a matter that the Fine Art Commission should be consulted about?

Mr. JOWETT: It has no relation to the Fine Art Commission. My first thought is the safety of the public, and the experiment must, therefore, go on.

Mr. J. JONES: Is it in order for an hon. Member to talk about blinking green eyes?

KENSINGTON PALACE GARDENS (TAXI-CABS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that taxi-cabs are now allowed to use the roadways in Hyde Park. similar facilities will be granted by the Crown with regard to the road known as Kensington Palace Gardens, connecting the Kensington Road with the Bayswater Road, whereby the existing congestion of traffic; in Church Street, Kensington, would be greatly relieved?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The roadway of Kensington Palace Gardens is maintained at the expense and for the benefit of the lessees of the houses abutting on the road, and the provisions of the Crown Leases preclude the Commissioners of Woods from allowing the road to be used otherwise than as a private road.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, if the local authority of the district were prepared to maintain the roadway so as to relieve the traffic in Church Street, whether other arrangements could be made with the lessees, who could then be relieved of the expense?

Mr. BUXTON: I think we are bound by the leases.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the leaseholders of Kensington Palace Gardens to let light traffic go though?

Mr. BUXTON: That might be considered if the question arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAR CHARGES (MILK).

Mr. AYLES: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take, as a result of the exemption of milk from the War Charges (Validity) (No. 2) Bill. to secure that farmers, who were illegally deprived in the south-western counties of 2d. per gallon, shall as far as possible have it made good to them?

Mr. BUXTON: I would point out that the farmers in the south-western counties were not illegally deprived. The levy which the House of Lords decided to be illegal was a levy on the distributors. I
am proposing, however, to approach the distributors to whom the sums in question are legally due, and suggest that this money should be devoted to research work for the benefit of the dairy industry.

Major COLFOX: Supposing the distributors refuse the request the right hon. Gentleman makes them, will the Government bring forward a short Bill to incorporate the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite provided it is found that the Bill would be supported by Members of all parties?

Mr. BUXTON: That is a hypothetical situation which, I hope, will not arise.

INSOLVENT FARMERS.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the information in detail upon which the statement is made in the current number of the Official Journal of the Ministry (page 132x) that, as regards the number of cases of public insolvency occurring amongst farmers, the pasture areas have suffered more than the arable areas; what are the areas to which he refers; what is the number of the insolvent farmers and the years; and whether, in point of fact, the Ministry, or the author of the statement, in arriving at the above conclusion, was aware of the actual character of the farming operations carried on by the said insolvent farmers?

Mr. BUXTON: I am informed by the author of the article, who is solely responsible for the views expressed therein, that the statement referred to by the hon. Member is based on the geographical distribution of the receiving orders in bankruptcy in the case of farmers in 1922. The number of receiving orders was 287. Of these cases 108, or 37 per cent. only, were in the Eastern half of England, which, on the whole, is more distinctively arable than the Western half. With regard to the last part of the question, the records of public insolvencies do not include any information as to the character of the farming.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there has been a further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Coddington, Cheshire, at the Middle Beachin Farm; and it this outbreak can be accounted for in any way?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes Sir. I am aware that foot-and-mouth disease has again occurred on the farm in question. At the moment I am not in a position to say to what cause this is to be attributed. A thorough investigation is being made into all the circumstances of the case, but inquiries have not yet been quite completed.

Earl WINTERTON: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the great difference in the Regulations to prevent movements of stock as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease put in operation by local authorities, even in cases where there is no disease within or near the county boundary of the particular authority; and if he is prepared to offer more definite advice on the subject so that there may be greater uniformity of Regulations in areas where conditions are similar?

Mr. BUXTON: I am aware that the Regulations made by local authorities in pursuance of their powers under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1895, prohibiting or regulating the movement of animals into their districts, vary in different counties. Such variations in the Regulations are, it, is understood, due in large measure to the variations in the trade in livestock between different counties. The question of securing greater uniformity of Regulations, in areas where conditions are similar, is one for the local authorities themselves to consider, as they are in the best position to judge of the requirements in this connection from their local knowledge of the trade conditions.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that there has been a radical alteration in the situation since many of these Regulation were put into operation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a conference with local authorities?

Mr. BUXTON: I will consider that.

DISEASED ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).

Major STEEL: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what course is adopted regard to valuations of stock which are slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Act. 1894; are special instructions given to valuers and arbitrators as to the basis on which the valuation is to be made; and, if so, on what authority are those instructions given?

Mr. BUXTON: In all cases where animals are being compulsorily slaughtered in accordance with Section 15 of the Diseases of Anmals Act, 1894, the instructions given to the valuer, and, if necessary, to an arbitrator, are to settle the amount of compensation payable in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (2) (i) and (ii) of that Section. The authority for these instructions is the Section referred to.

WAGES (DEVONSHIRE).

Captain TUDOR REES: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the conciliation committees for the county of Devon are working satisfactorily and that their decisions meet with the approval of all those affected by them, he will consider the advisability of excluding that county, and other counties in which similar conditions prevail, from the operation of the Agricultural Wages Bill?

Mr. BUXTON: It would be both invidious and impracticable to continue a different system of wage regulation for any particular counties.

Captain REES: Is the Agricultural Wages Bill the only contribution that the Government intend to make towards the solution of the agricultural problem?

Mr. BUXTON: That involves a larger question than is raised here.

Mr. STRANGER: When are we likely to have the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say for certain.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In introducing the Agricultural Wages Board Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication what his agricultural policy is in general?

Mr. BUXTON: I think that goes beyond the question.

FISHING INDUSTRY (DISTRESS).

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the distress among the fishing folk of Hull and other English ports; and whether he will undertake to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for moneys to assist those men, on similar lines to the Estimate which is to be introduced to provide moneys to assist distressed fishermen in the Scottish ports?

Mr. BUXTON: I am aware that the fishing industry as a whole has been experiencing considerable difficulty in recent years. I believe, however, that the situation is improving, and I am not aware of any abnormal distress at the present time. If a case for assistance to fishermen in England and Wales of the character which is proposed for Scottish fishermen is submitted to me and supported by similar evidence, I shall, of course, be prepared to take it into my serious consideration.

WASH (RECLAMATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of the Wash have been reclaimed during the current year; and what number it is proposed to reclaim before the end of the current year?

Mr. BUXTON: I am not aware that any reclamation on the Wash has taken place during the current year. The Government has, however, sanctioned the reclamation of an area of from 350–400 acres about seven miles from King's Lynn, and preparations for the work are being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not this rather disappointing? Surely this was announced as a leading plank in the Government's programme for the relief of unemployment this year.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: How much expenditure is estimated to be incurred during the current financial year?

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: How many will he employed?

HOUSING (CONSTRUCTION BY OFFICE OF WORKS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 81.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many houses for the working classes are now under construction by his Department, how many have been completed during the present year, and how many it is proposed to build during the next nine months?

Mr. JOWETT: There are 70 houses under construction, and 85 houses have been completed during the present year.
In addition to completing the houses under construction, the further number contemplated at present to be built is 20, making a total of 5,334 houses under the Addison Housing Scheme.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman was able to construct so many houses by his Department, why is he not going on constructing them?

Mr. VIVIAN: May I ask the cost of these houses?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

THAMES TOWPATHS.

Mr. PENNY: 83.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the conference between representatives of the various authorities concerned in the matter of the Thames towpaths, which he stated would be called for the middle of April, has been held; and, if so, whether he can now state what decisions were arrived at?

Mr. JOWETT: A conference of representatives of the Thames Conservancy, the Office of Woods and my Department on the subject of the repair of the towpath between Kingston and Hampton Court Bridges was held on the 28th April, and negotiations are still proceeding between my Department and the Thames Conservancy.

ART TREASURES (SALE).

Mr. SUNLIGHT: 84.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he receives periodical Reports from the Commission of Fine Art on whether or not works of art occasionally offered for sale by auction are of such national importance that steps should be taken to acquire them for the nation, having in view that an important public sale is about to be held?

Mr. JOWETT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Such matters are, I understand, outside the scope of the Royal Commission of Fine Art. The latter part of the hon. Member's question is one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

EXHIBITION, 1851 (SURPLUS INCOME).

Sir F. HALL: 85.
asked the, First Commissioner of Works whether, with regard to the Royal Commission which was appointed under charter to administer the surplus from the great exhibition of 1851, which surplus amounted to £186,000, he will state whether the Commission still possess an estate which is worth half a million, and have an available income of over £20,000 a year; and whether, in view of the large sum of money involved, he will place before the House a statement of account showing how the yearly income at the disposal of the Royal Commission is allocated?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply to this question. In reply to the first part of the question, the Commissioners of the exhibition of 1851 possess, as a result of judicious investment of the original surplus funds of that exhibition, an estate valued at present at approximately £500,000, with a nett income of over £20,000. This income is entirely devoted to scholarships and grants to research students, nearly half of which are allocated to research students from overseas and to industrial bursaries. In reply to the second part of the question, the Commissioners have no objection to their accounts for the year ending 31st December, 1923, being laid before Parliament with a memorandum explanatory of the activities of the Royal Commission past and present. This will accordingly be done.

TILBURY DOCK (NEW WORKS).

Mr. HOFFMAN: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour the extent of the Tilbury Dock scheme, for which tenders are now being invited and some of them accepted?

Mr. GOSLING: I have been asked to answer this question. I understand that the works which the Port of London Authority propose to undertake shortly at Tilbury include an extension of the docks, a new dry dock, and a passenger landing stage, and that the total cost is estimated at about £1,700,000.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the original scheme proposed by the Port of London
Authority included a deep-water dock as welt, and will he press for that scheme being completed?

Mr. MILLS: Before the hon. Member answers that question, may I ask whether, bearing in mind the undeveloped state of the river and the constant application by all the county authorities for a tunnel between the Essex side and the Kentish side, he will include these proposals in any scheme of development?

Mr. GOSLING: All these matters are now being considered.

Viscount CURZON: How many men is it anticipated will be employed?

Mr. GOSLING: I cannot state the number.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: Can the Deputy-Leader of the House say what Estimates will be taken on Thursday next?

Mr. CLYNES: On Thursday last I announced that the business for next Thursday would be the Ministry of Transport Vote, but in deference to a request that I have received through the usual channels, I am arranging for the Vote for the Ministry of Labour to be taken on that date. I also wish to announce that with respect to Wednesday, the Government propose to take the Committee stage of two urgent Supplementary Votes, that for the British Airship Service and that for the Scottish Fisheries. In case the discussion on these Votes is not completed by quarter-past eight, the Government propose to put down a Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock rule, the suspension to be limited to enable the Government to secure the Vote on these two Estimates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what other Vote will be put down for Thursday, after the question of the Minister of Labour's salary has been disposed of?

Mr. CLYNES: No other Vote.

Mr. HOPE: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that the discussion on the Finance Bill will end to-morrow?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes.

Mr. BALDWIN: Have the Government come to any decision as to when the Debate on Preference will be taken, and what time it will occupy?

Mr. CLYNES: It is still uncertain whether we can take that Debate next week. As to the length of time, those questions have to be considered in reference to the amount of time which we are compelled to give to other questions, keeping in mind the relative importance of the different questions, but we will do our best to meet the wishes of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED.

CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL,

"to make further provision for the application of money paid on account of the China Indemnity," presented by Mr. PONSONBY; supported by the Prime Minister and Mr. William Graham; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to he printed. [Bill 141.]

COAL MINES BILL,

"to explain Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment," presented by Mr. SHINWELL; supported by Mr. Webb; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NO 2) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) as from the date prescribed by the Minister of Labour under Subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, as the date on which the reduced rates of contributions -by employers and workmen are to come into force, of a contribution towards unemployment benefit and other payments to be made out of the Unemployment Fund at a rate not exceeding one-half of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of employed persons by themselves and their employers at the rates prescribed under the said Section;
(b) of such contributions in respect of employed persons of the age of fourteen or fifteen years as are now or may be hereafter be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of persons of the age of sixteen or seventeen years;
(c) of such contributions in respect of men of the Auxiliary Air Force undergoing training as are now or may hereafter be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of men of the Air Force while undergoing training."—(King's Recommendation, signified.)

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I want the Committee to give us this Money Resolution and I will explain as shortly as I can exactly what is required. The money power, which we need first, is a money power to provide for a higher percentage payment by the Exchequer, when the deficiency period of the present provisions expires, and we desire then to make the contribution of
the State one-third of the whole. I think that there can be two opinions on this point, but there is no need for any very long argument. It is the opinion of the Government that the State's liability for unemployment is as great at least as either that of the individual workers or the individual employers. This is a moderate demand coming from a party which really believes in non-contributory schemes of insurance, and I hope that the Committee will recognise our moderation and give us without demur the power for which we are asking here.
There is, however, one matter into which I think I ought to enter in view of what has been said in other connections. The Actuary's Report is based on certain figures, which we asked him to assume, and those figures were that up till the 15th October there would be 1,100,000 on the live register. I would call attention to the fact that two estimates had previously been made, and it was asserted in the House that because these estimates were so wide of the mark it was possible, in fact probable, that the present estimate was equally wide of the mark. It is true that on the figures shown the estimates made by a previous Minister of Labour appeared to be wide of the mark, but when we examine the actual facts of the case I think that the estimates made were not so very wide of the mark as has been assumed. The figures given were that in 1921 it was estimated that in June, 1922, the fund would have a credit balance of £4,750,000. The fact was that it was £14,750,000 in debt. It was assumed again in connection with the No. 2 Bill that the fund would be almost Solvent in July, 1923, and the fact was that the fund was £15,500,000 in debt.
Those are very striking figures and when given without explanation appear to denote an extraordinary wildness in estimating, but all the facts were not given. The actual estimate was based on a Bill which provided certain benefits. After the estimate had been made the House varied the benefits and the House was never told a word about these facts when these differences in estimates were brought to its attention. A similar thing took place with regard to the second estimate. The discrepancy in that case was due to causes quite different in most cases from those which had been assumed. So I ask the Com-
mittee not to assume that these estimates have been so wildly out but to take into account the fact that these differences were largely due to changes made in the House itself after the Estimates had been made.
4.0 P.M.
Obviously in presenting a Bill such as I have had to present, it is of the essence of things that I should tell the Committee all the circumstances. I would not attempt to get any Measure passed without fully stating exactly what the implications are, and I have been very anxious not to attempt to mislead the Committee. I asked the Government Actuary to deal with figures which will bring me well within my estimate, unless something very exceptional occurs. I also asked him to estimate that up to the 15th October, 1924, there would be 1,100,000 people on the live register. The fact is that at the present moment, including a special category of short-time workers whom we have on the list, there are fewer than 1,100,000 on the live register. So I think that I am well within the mark in suggesting that the Committee cannot err if they accept these figures, and that the actual results are likely to be well inside those figures. I estimate, then, that at the end of the deficiency period, in June, 1926, there will be a million people on the live register. I must state to the Committee a figure which will insure me against the charge in future of having deliberately misled the Committee. Then, after the deficiency period has expired, I assume 800,000, and there, again, I think I have given the Committee plenty of room, and that I am well within the figure. No man can tell how many people will be on the live register, and I owe it to those who are going to vote on the proposition to give as definite an assurance as I can that every care has been taken to be well on the right side in the figures that I have given. That deals with point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is a matter on which there is likely to be more controversy. It deals with the provision that I am making for employed persons at the age of 14 and 15 years to enter the scheme. The figures as to the probable cost have been already set out in the Actuary's Report, and I think I may deal with the question of principle, because I have been informed that, not the figures, but the principle
itself is likely to be the determining factor in this matter. I ask the Committee to believe that neither I nor the Government have any intention whatever of doing anything that will possibly hinder or hamper educational development, but, as Minister of Labour, I have to look at people who have definitely begun to work. I have promised already to make the widest concession possible to those genuine educationists who are uneasy about this matter, and on Friday last I met a deputation, representative of all the educational bodies in the country with the exception of London, and to them I said—and I am prepared to say it to the House—that if either they or the House will help me in the Committee stage I am prepared to make any concession and to agree to any kind of wording that will give to me or to my Department the right to insure those young persons who have definitely left school and entered industry.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why London was not represented? Was there any special reason?

Mr. SHAW: I cannot explain that. When people ask to see me, I have to take them as they come. I have seen representatives of the London Education Authority, and I have made the same statement to them.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen representatives from Scotland?

Mr. SHAW: I am not aware of having received any Scottish deputation, but I am willing, and I have been willing all the time, to see any deputation keenly interested in this matter, because it is my desire to come to an arrangement with them and to try to get them as much in accord as possible.

Mr. COVE: Did the right hon. Gentleman meet representatives of the Federation of Education Committees of England and Wales?

Mr. SHAW: I met the representatives of the education authorities, and they assured me that, with the exception of London, every organisation in Great Britain was represented. That was what I understood them to say, and certainly the names of the gentlemen present were a sufficient indication that they did really represent the education authorities of this
country. I ask the Committee to give me this paragraph of the Resolution, whether for the moment they believe that as it stands it is good or bad, and to leave it to the Committee stage to determine whether it is or is not good. Obviously, I cannot on a Money Resolution argue—at any rate, I do not want to argue—the merits of the paragraph as it now exists. If I did, I think I could prove that from the genuine educationist's point of view there is nothing of which one need be afraid, with the concessions that I have promised to make in Committee.
The third point of the Resolution is with regard to certain members of the Air Force. Let me explain in just a few words exactly what that paragraph means. It means that when a man is called up to be trained in the Auxiliary Air Force the Government, while he is in training, shall pay a contribution on his behalf, and, when he leaves the training, those contributions will stand to his benefit in the scheme. That is all that the paragraph with regard to the Air Force means. I do not know whether the Committee will expect to have any further discussion of this matter. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on the Estimate. I have told the Committee the reason I have fixed the figures. The only three other things that come into the account are the third to be paid by the Treasury at the end of the deficiency period, the money that I want for the young people between 14 and 16 years of age, and the very minor provision with regard to the Air Force, with which, I think, all the Committee will agree.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The speech of the Minister of Labour contained at any rate one very interesting statement, the statement that his Department was in favour of an entirely non-contributory scheme of insurance. That, I think, may possibly explain. a good many things in the Bill, the Resolution in respect of which we are discussing, and it draws a very clear line between those of us on this side of the Committee and, I think, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who emphatically do not believe in a non-contributory scheme for unemployment insurance or any other kind of insurance and who believe that any such attempt to introduce any system of insurance on a non-contributory basis will
lead inevitably to those evils with which we are only too familiar in connection with the Old Age Pension system. The Minister of Labour made another rather curious statement.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are the evils of the Old Age Pension system?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that I shall be in order in discussing them, but, as the hon. and gallant Member, like many others, has, I fancy, spent most of his time during the last two or three years in talking about the evils of the means limit and so on, I think his question, was meaningless. The Minister of Labour made another statement in relation to his Bill which I confess I could not in the least understand. He said that paragraph (a) of this Resolution proposed to raise the contribution of the Exchequer to one-half of the combined contributions because he and the party behind him believe that the interest and responsibility of the Exchequer in Unemployment Insurance is at least as great as either of the other two parties. I will not on this occasion dispute that general statement, but why is it that that principle is to be brought into force after the deficiency period and rot during the deficiency period? At the present time, the Exchequer is contributing rather less than one-quarter of the combined contributions.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Rather more.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg pardon. It is more like a third. One of the reasons and one of the justifications urged by the Government for the Measure for which they are taking great credit to themselves is that the Exchequer by this Resolution is now making unemployment a national charge and taking a large proportion of the burden off the shoulders of the local authorities. That is the argument. As a matter of fact, as the Bill stands at present, that is an absolutely illusory statement so far as the deficiency period is concerned. If anybody will examine the average rates per head of Poor Law relief throughout the country, he will see that in respect of the average family of a man and wife and three children, where this Unemployment Bill gives an extra benefit of 6s. per week, the Exchequer's part, namely, one-fourth or rather less than one-fourth, is equal to no
more than between 4 and 6 per cent. of the local poor law expenditure. It is a grant-in-aid of no more than between 4 and 6 per cent., and really to take credit in this way for taking a great burden off the boards of guardians is to play with this Committee and with the electors. If the Minister of Labour really believes in equality of contributions why does he not introduce it now during the deficiency period instead of waiting until after the deficiency period, and thus, at any rate, give some substance to the claim of the Government that they are relieving local rates to a very appreciable extent?
I am afraid that I have been led off the main purpose of the Resolution by the remarks of the Minister of Labour, but I confess that for myself I entertain the very gravest doubt and apprehension as to the whole of the policy embodied in this Resolution, and I could have wished that the Minister of Labour had not passed so very lightly over the real crux of the matter we are discussing, namely, the soundness of the finance of this proposal. After all, the Minister of Labour confined himself in justification to saying, "I gave the Actuary what I thought was en outside figure, and therefore I must be quite safe." Even if it was an outside figure, he is not safe on the Actuary's own showing. Let me read to the Committee one passage in the Actuary's Report. The Actuary first says the extra cost of this scheme will be £10,000,000, with a live register of 1,000,000 and £8,000,000 with a live register of 800,000. That is to say, the extra cost is going, roughly, to be £10 per head of the unemployed on the live register. Then he goes on to say:
In connection with the Estimates here given, it should be understood that the numbers on the live register, as assumed, will include a certain number of persons who, under previous conditions and failing the exercise of Ministerial discretion on their behalf, would presumably not have remained on the register in the absence of continued benefit rights. The number in this class cannot be estimated, and to this, extent it is impracticable to compute the full value of the concessions proposed by the Bill.
As a matter of fact, the Actuary, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's Strike Clause, confesses himself absolutely unable to make anything like an accurate estimate. May I point out to the Com-
mittee one rather curious thing about the estimate which he does give I £10,000,000 a year on a live register of 1,000,000 is just about equal, or was when the Actuary drew up his Report, to the whole deficit on the Fund. The increased benefits proposed by the right hon. Gentleman mean that whereas on the existing basis the fund would be completely solvent in one year from now, it will not at any rate be solvent until July, 1926, and, therefore, for a whole year longer, the burden upon the employer and employed, and on industry, will be something like 60 per cent. greater than it would otherwise be. It is a direct tax on industry, a direct producer of unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does the Noble Lord wish to infer that the workmen's contribution is a tax on industry?"] Of course. The worker and the employer are partners in industry, and any burden which falls upon either or both is a charge on industry. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that you can tax a workman as much as you like without it being a burden on industry? Do they think that the only thing that is a burden on industry is a tax on the employer? These little colloquies add enormously to the length of my speech. I think every fair-minded person will agree that when I talk about the employers' and the employés' contributions being a tax on industry I am perfectly right in so defining it. If the hon. Member does not like it being called a burden on industry, I will call it a burden on the workman. You are putting off by a whole year the time when the workman's contribution will be reduced by 3d. per week and you are, for that year, continuing this tax on the workman. Do hon. Members prefer that as a description of their proposal?
This is not all, because the Actuary foresees something which cannot yet be estimated. At the end of the deficiency period this is going to happen. The increased contribution from the Exchequer is going to be about £5,800,000. The increase benefits on a. live register of 800,000 are going to be £8,000,000. You have an estimated surplus of £1,000,000 if these imponderable factors, which the Actuary foresees but cannot estimate, are wiped out. By the increased benefits you are converting a surplus which would be £9,000,000 into a surplus of £1,000,000, and you are doing that at the expense of the employed, the employer
and the Exchequer. That £9,000,000 surplus, as far as I have calculated, is something very like 25 per cent. of the whole annual contributions of the three parties. If you did not increase your rate of benefits you would be able to reduce the contributions proposed by almost 25 per cent. and possibly by more than that, in view of the imponderable factors to which the Actuary has referred. Is it nothing, this burden you are thus placing on the workmen and on the employers? Yet that is the result of it, whatever you may say. Not only does it impose that burden, but it proposes a rate of contribution and a rate of benefit which, on the actual showing of the Minister's figures, will only give you £1,000,000 surplus, a surplus which may disappear by reason of the operation of those factors which the Actuary admits he cannot estimate.
Is that safe business for the insurance fund? I can imagine it may be regarded as safe by those who believe in noncontributory insurance, but it means that the Insurance Fund is not going to be a fund at all. It is going to be an account out of which are paid, year by year, out of the receipts of the year, benefits to the workman. There is no prospect of funding any part of that fund. There is no prospect of building up a strong insurance fund—no prospect whatever. It remains purely an account from year to year—an unfunded Insurance Fund. Those who do not believe in non-contributory insurance are looking forward to the working out of a system of combined insurance, but by the way you are treating this unemployment insurance fund, you are taking away from the employer, the employed and the Exchequer resources which otherwise would be at their disposal for granting additional benefits. You are mortgaging the future in every way, and such mortgaging of the future we cannot view with anything but the gravest dissatisfaction.
On Paragraph (c) there is one point which, I think, has not yet been touched upon. We have had the effect of this insurance of juveniles discussed from the point of view of its effect on the minds of parents—

Mr. MASTERMAN: There is an Amendment in my name dealing specifically with paragraph (c). Would it not be more convenient if we, could take this
discussion on that instead of having to repeat our speeches over again?

The CHAIRMAN: It certainly would be more convenient.

Lord E. PERCY: I am only proposing to say a very few words on this subject. We have had this question discussed from the point of view of its effect on the minds of the parents and also from the point of view of its effect on the minds of the local education authority, but we have not yet had it discussed from the point of view of its effect on the mind of the child. I want to suggest to the Minister of Labour this point—the way in which it will bring the juvenile between 14 and 16 years of age into that weekly crush at the Employment Exchanges when drawing benefits. Some of us have seen that crush at certain Employment Exchanges, and we say it is the worst kind of atmosphere into which you could possibly bring boys of that age. [An HON. MEMBER.: "Will you agree to raise the school age?"] I have always been in favour of raising the school age.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then let us have a bargain.

Lord E. PERCY: I cannot take upon myself to raise the school age.

Mr. SHAW: I do not want the Noble Lord to waste his time, but I would like to point out that these young persons are always paid at separate places and usually by the Education Authority.

Lord E. PERCY: If it is a separate part of the Employment Exchange that does not satisfy me, but if they are paid by the Education Authority then my objection largely vanishes. I cannot undertake the responsibility of raising the school age to 15, when the present President of the Board of Education himself says he finds himself powerless to do it. The interruptions of hon. Members opposite have made my remarks somewhat disjointed. All T want to say, in conclusion, is that on this side we do not regard this proposal as financially sound. We are not satisfied that it is. The Minister of Labour has said nothing which can make us regard it as sound. He has provided, in fact, no defence for it whatever. The margin on the Minister of Labour's own showing is small. Even if this proposal does not run this fund into a continued deficit it does place a
large continued burden on both employers and employed, and it makes it utterly impossible to put the fund on a really sound and strong basis. With all the burdens which it casts upon industry, upon employers, employed, and the State, it will do nothing to lighten the burden on the local Poor Rate. The proposal is an unsatisfactory one, it is a dangerous one, and it is likely to prejudice the whole future of contributory insurance.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Noble Lord has said a good many interesting things, but there is one which profoundly struck me as desirable to be enshrined. I was glad to hear the statement made from those benches that workmen and employers are partners in industry. That is a very interesting thing to have on record from those benches. It is the first time I have heard it admitted, and I repeat it ought to be enshrined, that workmen and employers are partners in industry. Apparently now we are all agreed on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] When we do agree our unanimity is wonderful. I am much obliged to the Minister for the detailed and careful examination he gave us of this Money Resolution. Paragraph (a) authorised the revision of the proportion to be paid into the Insurance Fund by the Treasury after the deficiency period is closed. The Act of 1911 fixed the Treasury contribution at one-third of the combined contributions of employers and employed. In 1920 we fixed the Treasury contribution in relation to each class of insured person. That is rather a different position. For men it came out at one-fourth of the combined contributions of employers and employed. For women, it came out at more than one-fourth but at less than one-third. For boys between 16 and 18 years of age it came out at exactly one-third, and for girls between 16 and 18 it came out at rather under one-third The Noble Lord was a little in error. The contribution of the Treasury is approximately one-third, not of the whole, but of the combined contributions of employers and employed. Last year's Act provided that when the deficiency period is over and the contributions are reduced, the State's contribution should be definitely one-fourth of the combined contributions. Paragraph (a) says that it shall be one-half of the combined contributions, and one-
third of the whole, therefore, after the deficiency period. That is the proposition. For instance, a man would pay 6d. instead of 9d.; the employer would pay 6d. instead of 10d.; and the Treasury would pay 6d. instead of 6¾d I am taking men only.
I very cordially support the proposition. The State certainly has a third party interest in the scheme; moreover, it administers the lot. After the Armistice for a long time the State paid out of work donation on a non-contributory basis. The Act of 1920 brought all that to a close—the non-contributory out of work donation scheme, and turned it down the channel of the Insurance Act. With what result? From that date the Treasury contributed, roughly, between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 a year, instead of £50,000,000, as it had been doing under the out of work donation scheme. Had the out of work donation scheme continued, the 1921–1922 contribution would have been nearer £100,000,000 than 250,000,000. The Treasury has not done badly out of this. I cordially agree that my right hon. Friend's proposition, after the deficiency period is closed, is a perfectly sound one. All this will not come into operation until the close of the deficiency period, which is fixed by the Actuary for June, 1926. The extension and increase of benefits which have already been enacted or are proposed in this Bill postpone solvency, and keep up the abnormally high contributions, which in many cases have had no relation whatever to the unemployment risk of the contributor, until after that date is reached. If benefit could have been left as it is—I do not say that was possible—solvency would have been reached before the end of this year, and not in a year's time, as was stated by the Noble Lord, and then 9d. a week, taking the men again, would have become 6d., and 3d. would have been saved, which we could have used for the purpose of dealing with old age pensions or of reducing the age at which a man would draw the old age pension. My right hon. Friend took the other line.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest a contributory scheme, for old age pensions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: They are paying 9d. now in had times. They could surely pay 9d. in good times. If you had
left benefits as they were the contribution would have come down to 6d., and you would have had 3d. left, and you could have left that to stand., and could have applied it to some other benefit. That is the proposition which I am putting. The Minister has taken the other course. The old age pension is 10s. I am not interfering with it. I am saying, "Here is 3d. which you are paying in now, which is not wanted for unemployment insurance. Will you let me apply it to improve the les, pension or reducing the age at which a man gets the 10s., or starting widows' pensions, if you like?" My right hon. Friend says, "I cannot help that; I wish I could. I have to go on adding to the benefits, and, therefore, postponing the date of solvency." My opinion is that we are rather getting this thing into what I might call a topsy-turvy condition. At one end of the line we have 300,000 young fellows, hardy, stout and enduring, vainly walking the streets in the search for work, and subsisting upon the very slender assistance now to be increased by the unemployment benefit, or such relief as the Poor Law gives them. At the other end of the line we have a number of old men, a very much larger percentage than usual, because they came in during the War to take the young fellows' places. They are holding down jobs, but would gladly give them up and retire if they could. Their decent retirement might have been assisted if we had had this 3d. at an earlier date in order to extend existing schemes.
There is a number of us in this House, not confined to any particular part of it, who would have been glad to have facilitated that, and to have taken this 3d. a week by which the unemployment contribution would otherwise have been reduced, and to have applied it in such a way as would have enabled us to let the old men give up toil, and to move the young men up to take their places. But that cannot be done now in any case until after June, 1926. The young fellows are getting this money, as the Lord Privy Seal would probably say, without service in return, and the old men are still hanging on to jobs that they would gladly give up because they have no decent means of retirement before them. The Minister's choice was a difficult one, and if I had been in his place, I do not know that I should have taken any other course. As
to paragraph (b), I will not speak at length, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) is to move an Amendment to it.

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: is it possible for us to have the Amendment read?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is an Amendment to omit paragraph (b). My right hon. Friend desires to leave out paragraph (b) altogether.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are more Amendments down to amend paragraph (b).

The CHAIRMAN: There is another, but it is out of order.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is that the Amendment which is down in my name and that of my colleagues?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no shadow of doubt that the great majority of the members of this Committee very cordially dislike paragraph (b) in its present form, and I warn the Minister that if this Amendment goes to a division I shall feel bound to support it. I appreciate the Minister's motive. What he says in effect is, "Whether I like it or not, these children do go to work at 14 years of age. We do not know where they are, or what they are doing. Let me keep a hand on them if I can. How can I do it? By putting them into the Insurance Act. If they draw my benefit I shall be able to keep an eye on them." He said further, "If you do not like 14 years of age, and think that that will standardise the age at which a child becomes a potential wage-earner, leave it generally; leave it, and say that directly a child has satisfied the educational law and is no longer compelled to go to school, and enters an insurable occupation, it shall be insured under the conditions of this Bill." That would be a better form. But the more many of us think about this paragraph, the more we dislike it. I cannot understand why the Minister has left it in its present form, because he promised that he would take out altogether the reference to the age.
I have nothing to say on paragraph (c), except to comment upon an omission. It is with regard to the agricultural worker. I listened with profound sympathy to my right hon. Friend's kindly reference to the agricultural worker, and I should
have thought that he would have taken the necessary power to deal with him. I am not an agricultural representative, and I am speaking only for myself in the matter. I should have thought he would have taken power in the Resolution to bring in the agricultural workers under a special scheme of their own, with reduced contributions and proportionately reduced benefits. Even then, of course, he would probably have wanted to exempt all those who are under a yearly system of hire. He has not taken that power, however, and if he wished to move to do it now he would have to begin all over again. Summarising my remarks, I support paragraph (a). I look upon paragraph (b) with the greatest anxiety, and I should be easier if it were knocked out altogether. As to paragraph (c), I think my right hon. Friend would have been well advised to have taken power, which I think he will find it necessary to take some day, in order to do something to cover, under appropriate conditions, the agricultural worker.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise only for the purpose of elaborating the question which I put to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in the course of his speech. It is interesting to know that the Noble Lord and the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who sits beside him, apparently agree with the Marxian theory of the governing law of wages. I understood from both that if the workman's contribution to the unemployment scheme were made less or turned down altogether, it would result in a reduction of wages. If it does not mean that, the idea of this contribution being a tax on industry is altogether wrong. It either comes from the wages that the workman can get in any case, or it comes because the employer pays it under force majeure, and would reduce wages by the amount that the workman was not compelled to pay. It is a very interesting point. Personally, I think that you could not reduce the wages so easily.

Lord E. PERCY: I never thought or said anything of the kind nor did I imply it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: That was the inference which I drew from the Noble
Lord's argument, and when I put a question the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who was seated beside the Noble Lord, assented by nodding his head. I should like to know how otherwise this can be regarded as a tax upon industry? When one finds hon. Gentlemen on the other side so keen about taxes on industry in relation to this matter, one wonders why they are not equally keen about other and more obvious taxes on industry. We have raised from time to time various points with regard to taxes upon industry, but little notice has been taken of those points by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is wonderful to notice on this occasion the unanimity of opinion with regard to the question of raising the school age. Apparently nobody is in favour of bringing children under this insurance scheme and I have heard more expressions from all parts of the House on the necessity and desirability of raising the school age during this Debate than I ever heard before. But if these expressions of sympathy are genuine it merely shows the rather foolish and futile manner in which hon. Members of this House seek to obtain the reforms which they desire. If we really desire to raise the school age—and I am very much in favour of doing so, and I believe so is my party—and if we have the unanimity which has been expressed to-day, I suggest the time has come to raise the school age at once. Let us have an all-round system of secondary education. That at least would be something of a tangible character, and I suggest that the Minister of Labour should confer with the President of the Board of Education and bring in a Bill amending the Education Act by raising the school age. It would be a tangible asset for this country; not only would it be good for the children but it would be valuable for the community. I am thoroughly convined we still have the unemployment problem before us. It seems to be regarded as a certainty that the margin is not likely to sink below one million, which reminds me of a remark made by the late Prime Minister when he questioned whether unemployment was not becoming endemic instead of epidemic. If it is becoming endemic and if we are to have one million people constantly unemployed, then the sooner we get a number of children out of employment in
order to give them a proper education the better for all concerned. Let us give them an education which will fit them to compete in the world market as long as our present system of international competition remains. Only by educating the people can this country maintain itself as a trading nation in face of the world's competition. Other nations recognise that fact. Germany, about which we hear so much, foolishly cut down her education grant but when the War was over she increased it in spite of her poverty, and she is doing all she can to give an education to her children at any rate as adequate as that which was given before the War, and we know that Germany was not behindhand in this respect before the War. When we begin to probe into the elementary causes of this problem, we should consider the desirability of trying to discover and make use of the dormant genius which is lying ready to hand among the children of the country. We should be better engaged in developing that genius by raising the school age and making all-round secondary education possible than by bringing boys and girls under this unemployment scheme. I trust that the expressions of opinion we have heard from all sides of the House regarding this very necessary reform mean that it will shortly be an accomplished fact.

The CHAIRMAN: The manuscript Amendment which has been handed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) in his own name and the names of other hon. Members—in paragraph (a), to leave out from the word "rate" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert "which will provide full maintenance to the unemployed person and his dependants equal to that which would obtain were he in full time employment"—is out of order because it would increase the charge. I therefore call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) to move his Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw your attention, Sir, to a previous ruling upon an Amendment of a similar character moved by me in relation to a Money Resolution on 24th October, 1921. That Money Resolution was also in connection with an Unemployment Insurance Bill, and a number of Amendments were submitted by various individual Members and officially on behalf of the parties in the
House. All the Amendments were ruled out of order with the exception of one which I submitted. Sir Edwin Cornwall, who was then Deputy-Chairman, ruled that my Amendment was in order and the Amendment which I now submit is practically similar and seeks to do no more than the previous Amendment to which I refer. I would therefore ask for reasons why this Amendment is regarded as being out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: The reason for my ruling is obvious. The Amendment proposes to take out certain words and to insert other words providing full maintenance for an unemployed person and his dependants equal to that which they would receive were he in full-time employment. It is perfectly obvious that the charge to be imposed for that purpose would be considerably above that stated in the Money Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: In justification of my request, may I read what occurred on the previous occasion to which I have referred? I then proposed to leave out of the Money Resolution, which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and was in terms almost precisely similar to those of the present Resolution, the words
sum which would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys and girls.
I proposed to insert, instead of those words, the words
trade union rate of wages paid in the district in which the unemployed person resides.
That involved a higher rate than was proposed in the Money Resolution, and the Deputy-Chairman, Sir Edwin Cornwall, said:
I think that would be in order.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) then addressed the Chairman and said:
You have already ruled that we cannot by any Amendment of this Resolution make it wider than the Resolution passed by the House setting up this Committee. The proposal of the hon. Member now is to extend the amount provided by Parliament to a sum equal to the trade union rate of wages paid in the district in which the unemployed person resides. That obviously is
an enormous extension of the decision of House yesterday, and I submit the Amendment is necessarily out of order.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have looked at it very carefully, and it does not seem to me it is out of order, because the Resolution setting up the Committee deals with the payment of grants, and this Amendment deals with the grant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1921; col. 589, Vol. 147.]

The CHAIRMAN: Was this in Committee?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am reading from the discussion which took place upon a Money Resolution similar to the Resolution we are discussing here, in the Committee stage which is the same stage at which we have arrived here. I submit it is precisely the same position, the same kind of Bill and the same kind of Money Resolution.

Mr. MAXTON: But a different Chairman.

Mr. MACLEAN: With a different Chairman, of course, and therefore a different ruling. I think I have submitted sufficient to justify me in asking you, Sir, to revise your ruling, which is in direct violation to a ruling given, as I submit, in similar circumstances on a similar Amendment. I make this suggestion with all deference, because, on the occasion which I am citing, the House had an opportunity for several days of considering the Money Resolution, and Members were enabled to put Amendments on the Order Paper, and there was an opportunity of considering those Amendments prior to the discussion. I apologise that in this case I have only been able to hand in the Amendment in manuscript form, and necessarily that has not given you, Sir, nor the Clerks at the Table, the same opportunity of considering the matter as was afforded on the previous occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: This Resolution is submitted under Standing Order 71A, and the King's Recommendation which was signified from the Front Government Bench to-day covers the Resolution. The Amendment of the hon. Member is wider than the Resolution, and for that reason I have ruled it out of order, and for that reason I still think it is out of order.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. [Interruption.] I am perfectly justified in raising a point of Order. I am rais-
ing a question which is contingent upon a previous ruling by a previous Chairman. We, as private Members, have a right to he told why an Amendment which has been ruled as in order on one occasion, should be ruled out of order on another. The previous ruling was never challenged by hon. Members on the other side. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham never challenged the ruling of the Chair.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never do.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MACLEAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to support me. The Money Resolution which is before us to-day comes under the same Standing Order as the Resolution which was moved on the 24th October, and we have a right to be informed why this Standing Order should have one application in 1921 and have a contrary application in 1924. I think the Committee is entitled to know the full reasons why these things are being ruled out of order. Otherwise, it would have been possible for those of us who want to express our views on the principle contained in the Amendment you are now ruling out of order to have raised the whole question of that principle in the general Debate that was proceeding before the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) rose to move his Amendment. As soon as he moves that Amendment, it limits the whole scope of the discussion, and I suggest either that you allow my Amendment to be considered to be in order, or go back upon the general discussion and allow us to discuss the principles contained in the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion to which my hon. Friend has alluded is not exactly on all fours with the Resolution before us to-day. The Resolution, as I have pointed out, is under Standing Order 71A, and there is no record of that in the Records of the House dealing with the previous Motion. I have already indicated why I have ruled the Amendment out of order, because it means a very largely increased charge.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I wish—

The CHAIRMAN: I must tell the hon. Member that I cannot enter into an argument with him.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not desiring to enter into any argument, but I have surely a right to know why, as a private Member having rights in this House, which are and ought to be conserved to him as well as to all private Members, this is ruled out by the Standing Order on the ground that it exceeds the sum, when the previous Resolution also largely exceeded the sum which the Money Resolution in those days would also have allowed. Surely that is a perfectly justifiable request to put to the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot enter into the mind of my predecessor when he was sitting in the Chair in relation to the matter then under discussion. I have to consider the matter as it presents itself to me now, and under these conditions I have given my ruling that the hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.

Mr. MAXTON: Without regard to the decisions that are past.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you base your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that the reference is to Standing Order 71A (King's Recommendation to be signified)? I understood that this did not appear in the Resolution to which my hon. Friend referred, but, if I may submit to you, it is only a difference in time. The King's Recommendation was signified the day before, and it was to that recommendation that the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) referred on that occasion, and obviously the Chairman of that day had the reference in his mind when he ruled my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in order on that occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion to which reference has been made was a vague Motion and simply said, "authorise the payment out of moneys," but this Motion before us to-day deals with the amount of contributions and states the definite amount of contribution that has to be taken out of Government money.

Mr. MACLEAN: So did the other one.

Mr. PRINGLE: On the point of Order. It is very important to know what precedent in future the Committee will follow in a matter of this kind. Let me submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that on the Motion made on the previous occasion, on
the contribution, it is true, was only for a period of six months, but it was
a contribution towards grants to be paid to unemployed workers during a period of six months, not exceeding the amount determined by the Treasury to be approximately equivalent to the sum which would be produced by weekly contributions, paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys, and girls."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1921; col. 581, Vol. 147.]
There you have the standard laid down as approximately equal to that. Here the Resolution says that it is at a rate not exceeding one half of the aggregate amount. It is only a different standard; the method of computation is different. I suggest that, if the former ruling was right, my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) should be in order on this occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out that the Motion referred to on a previous occasion was a most indefinite Motion. The Motion that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has just read is not the one to which the King's Recommendation was signified, which was on the day before that. I have pointed out that on that Motion the whole thing was quite indefinite, but on this Motion it is quite specific.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask leave to move to report Progress, in order that we may discuss the ruling that you have just given, and that we may discuss the question that arises on this matter? It is obvious that if we pass on to the Amendment—

Mr. HOPE: On a point of Order. Is not the only means of questioning the Chairman's ruling by a specific Motion, of which notice must appear on the Order Paper?

The CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) knows that. I was going to point out that, if we do not spend too much time on the Amendment which is to be moved, we can go back to the general discussion.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking your leave to move to report Progress. Are you going to rule me out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not taking the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to intimate—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The CHAIRMAN: I have said that I am not taking the Motion to report Progress, and that is within my right.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I wish to give notice that I shall place on the Order Paper a Motion drawing attention to the ruling you have now given, as distinguished from the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On another point of order. I understand the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) is about to move an Amendment which does not appear on the Paper, and, of course, there is a reason for that. I understand that the subsequent discussion must be confined to that Amendment. We might go on till 8.15 discussing this Amendment, which raises the very controversial question of boys and girls leaving school, and their insurance money, and so on. Would it not be possible to have some further discussion on the general question, as we have no guarantee, and I know it is not in your power, Mr. Chairman, to prevent a discussion on the right hon. Member's Amendment going on for the rest of the time allowed to the Committee? The right hon. Gentleman is the second Privy Councillor upon whom you have called from the bench below the Gangway on this side. Only a Noble Lord spoke previously, and the only back bencher or private Member who has had any chance of intervening so far was the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). Under these circumstances, and especially in view of the fact that this Amendment does not appear on the Paper, and that there may he other Amendments to be moved by the right hon. Member for Rusholme, might we not discuss a little further the general question, which is so important—there are some points that some of us hope to bring up—and then pass on to the Amendment at a later hour?

The CHAIRMAN: I noticed that those who did speak on the general question were dealing with this Amendment more or less indirectly, and, therefore, I thought we might as well get on to it at once.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b). I can assure
my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that I have no further Amendments handed in, and I think it is your opinion, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Committee that this specific question, which, as far as I know, is the only question that can be called controversial—and I am not sure that this is controversial—should be disposed of before the Committee continues with the general discussion. I hope very much that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), who spoke with great force in favour of the principle that I am submitting to the Committee, will find it incumbent upon him to support this Amendment in word, and in vote. I can assure the Committee that I will not trouble them at any undue length, but this seems to me to be a vital Amendment. Its object is to remove from compulsory insurance the children between 14 and 16 years of age. I must apologise to the Committee for not having given further notice of the Amendment, but we received this Financial Resolution only on Friday, and there was no means of getting it on the Paper at all for to-day. I, therefore, hope that my apology will be accepted.
I greatly desired, if I could, to leave this controversial matter to the Committee upstairs, as my right hon. Friend suggested that we should do, but when I come to the terms of the Financial Resolution, as it is drawn at present, and having consulted with such authorities as I have been able to consult in the last few hours, I find that, if the Resolution be passed in its present form, it will so limit any possibilities of alteration in the Committee upstairs that it will rule out most of the suggestions which were made, during the Debate last Tuesday, of alternative ways of spending the Government money which they are prepared to give, rather than on compulsory unemployment insurance. Therefore, I want to ask the Committee to join with me in inviting my right hon. Friend to withdraw this particular paragraph of his Resolution, as he could do by leave of the Committee, and to leave the Committee upstairs to debate the question. When he sees what the opinion of that Committee is, it is entirely within his power to bring in a special Resolution in conformity with the desires of the Committee in connection with the treatment of this particular class of children. If he
does not do that, and if he succeeds in inducing this Committee to vote with him, there is no means of carrying out the many suggestions which have been voiced by all sides on this subject. I am very much hoping that my right hon. Friend will give way to what I believe is the opinion of all parties. Last Tuesday there was not a single Member of the House who got up to support this proposal, and earnest and eloquent speeches came from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Govan, from hon. Members opposite, and from hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), imploring the Government not to proceed with this particular proposal. Therefore, I submit that I am entirely within the promise I made last Tuesday to the Committee to endeavour, in an entirely non-party fashion, to deal with this scheme of social reform.
In order to make my remarks as brief as possible, let me, if I do not appear to be didactic, draw up under one or two heads our objections to this proposal. The first is that you are taking from the children you insure, under 16, in respect of their insurance money, from those children themselves, and you are paying it over to the insurance of adults. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said that that did not matter, because in future years they might get some benefit from it in the general unemployment plan. I would submit that you should keep to your general unemployment scheme as you have it now, and, if you want more money, give more money from the State, or, if necessary, from the contributory elements to it, but do not try to get more money by taking the children's money. It is not fair. If my right hon. Friend will agree that he will devote the whole of the children's money to the interests of the children in some way or other, then we shall be very glad to consider any scheme in Committee. That cannot be done under this Resolution, because you bring in definitely contributions in respect of employed persons of the age of 14 or 15.

Mr. SHAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he gets this deleted, what possibility have I upstairs of raising
any funds at all from the State for the objects of which he speaks

Mr. MASTERMAN: Every possibility in the world. This does not arise in Committee of Ways and Means. The only reason the right hon. Gentleman brought in this Resolution before the Bill was because the right hon. Gentleman was specially appealed to. Normally, the Financial Resolution comes in after going to Committee. It is a totally different procedure from that arising out of Ways and Means. Therefore, it is possible to withdraw this Resolution and bring in a fresh Resolution, to take money you think you can get for this purpose, and to use it for the purpose we all desire. The Government submitted to us some actuarial calculations as to the amount of money these children would pay, and the amount of benefits they would receive, but, after my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill, he stated he was prepared to modify it in order that none of these children should receive any benefit until they had been 30 weeks employed. Does not that completely destroy the whole actuarial calculations of his Bill? It means that you will take very much more money from the children, and give much less return to the children than in the original Bill. Then my right hon. Friend said he was prepared to raise the age from 14, but the more he raises the age the less benefit these children get. Suppose he raises the age to 15. You then say you will pay no benefits to children of 13 until they have worked for eight months, and there are only four months in which they can receive any benefit. In each case it is taking enormously more from the children than you give back to them. Since last Tuesday I have been looking through the Debates on the great. National Health Insurance, Bill of 1911, and, in connection with the health scheme, we had to resist Amendments made in Committee to lower the age of the children included in the scheme from 16 to 14. We resisted those ideas, and carried the Committee with us in making the starting age 16.
There were two pleas, which are as valid to-day as they were 12 years ago. The first was that if you insured these children compulsorily, the rate of sickness in those ages were so comparatively small
that you were taking more from those children than you ought in order to pay for general insurance funds. The second, which was put by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway again and again, was that we should stabilise the age of the commencement of industrial life at 16. We do do not want to do anything now to reduce that stabilised age, which we intend to set forth as an ideal, and work for by every means in our power. The third point—and nothing has been said in Debate which makes me withdraw from it —was very well put my my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Education and the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who has a right to speak for a large number of the teaching profession in this country, and that is that by early and premature insurance of these children, you are both influencing parents and backward local authorities, the parents to send their children earlier to work, and the local authorities to say that it is better they should go to work than raise the age to 15, which they can do with the sanction of the Board of Education. The fourth point is that there are no schools for these children in any way satisfactory, and there is no accommodation for them, if after eight months they go out of employment; and, from the nature of the case, there cannot be any satisfactory schools for them unless a fundamental change be made in the whole manner of applying assistance and relief. Under the conditions proposed you cannot get anything like an education or training for after life, and I once more challenge my right hon. Friend whether he cannot, as an alternative to this, abandon this compulsory insurance, and see if he cannot use the money for providing maintenance for those who need it, so as to keep the children in real schools over 14 years of age before they go out to work at all.
The last reason I submit to the Committee is this. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education told us last Tuesday that he saw no particular harm in this proposition. I think there is harm; I think harm has been done to the children between 16 and 18 whom we have tried to get in in the unsatisfactory school. They go out in a worse condition than they went in, and thoroughly disgusted with anything the State calls education. But in so far as you insure children who are in continual work, so
that they pay full contributions from 14 to 16, or 15 to 16, you are offering them no benefit at all. You are taking their money without any return, and you are making it harder for the President of the Board of Education to establish those ideals which he has been preaching up and down the country. Since last Tuesday public opinion has had pretty clear means of declaring itself on this subject. There has not been a single great newspaper, body of teachers, trade union, or any other body which has a right to speak, which has not been definitely opposed to this scheme. Take it back, and consider it a little more. If a scheme is proposed necessitating a Resolution which will meet with the general consent of those in the House who care most for these children, we will be willing to give it all facilities far its passage; but if you pass this Resolution there will be no alternative but compulsory insurance for children between the ages of 14 and 16, or receiving no money at all from the State. Therefore I ask all to join with me in appealing to the right hon Gentleman, and I submit that if he does not see his way to do this I have a right to take the sense of the Committee, regardless of party Whips, as to whether they desire this compulsory insurance for these children.

Mr. SHAW: I think I had better rise now in order to deal with one or two of the criticisms.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is the Minister of Labour entitled to reply to criticisms that have taken place on a general discussion of the Bill, or is he merely entitled to reply to anything my right hon. Friend has said?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. SHAW: With regard to this Amendment, I think everybody in the Committee is agreed that what we want to do is the best thing for the children. About that there is no question. The only difference of opinion is, what is the best thing to do for these young persons? I myself want to take the sense of the Committee, and in such a way as to give a guarantee that the interests of the children will be properly safeguarded, and not to force an opinion of mine on
the Committee, nor, if I may so put it, to have a dogmatic opinion of an educational character forced on the Committee, without regard to other interests which really do belong to the children, and have a great deal to do with their lives as industrial workers. If it were possible to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and still have a practical way of dealing in Committee upstairs with the question at length and in detail, I would accept at once the Amendment, but I am instructed that if I accept this Amendment, this part of the Bill goes out definitely, and we can only deal with children again by getting a fresh Money Resolution. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave me this Money Resolution, and to discuss his question upstairs, and I will give him this guarantee, that if the Committee upstairs come to a decision, on the part of the Government, will not ask Parliament to reverse that decision. It can then be argued out in detail.

Mr. MASTERMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will leave the question open, and let the Committee discuss it, and he gets a practically unanimous opinion of the Committee, he will have no difficulty in getting all parties to support a Money Resolution in this House.

Mr. SHAW: But that would mean bringing in another Money Resolution. What I suggest is, to leave this Money Resolution, and what is decided in Committee I will accept on the part of the Government. Then we need not come to the House again with another Money Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am given the powers to have money for these young persons from 14 to 16, you can put the Clause as you like in the Bill to deal with the money, but, if you do not give it to me ipso facto the Clauses come out of the Bill, and I can only replace them by a Money Resolution to be brought before the House again.

Mr. MASTERMAN: This is my point—I should not have raised it if we could do that. Suppose the Committee want this grant as a maintenance grant for children to be kept at school after 14, we cannot do it under this Resolution. We can do it if the right lion. Gentleman comes down to the House with another Money Resolution.

Mr. SHAW: I understand what is suggested is that in an Insurance Act I should have Clauses dealing with the education of the children. I suggest that that is a most impractical way of dealing with education.

Mr. PRINGLE: You have got an instruction in the Bill already.

Mr. SHAW: The position boils itself down to this. Is it admitted that if this paragraph be taken out these Clauses with regard to children come out also? If that be admitted, I ask the Committee not to take away this part of the Money Resolution, because that will make it absolutely impossible to go into the matter at all until we know whether we can have a Money Resolution for the things the right hon. Gentleman advocates.

Mr. MASTERMAN: You can draw the Clause wide.

Mr. SHAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that we should draw one so wide that we need not come to the House again? I say that everything you suggest doing to-day can be done under this Clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] —just as well as you can do it in any other way. Hon. Members have said that the money from the children under 16 would be paying for the adults. Obviously, the children under 16 are likely to pay as much in contributions as they get in benefit; but when they reach 16 they will have contributions to their credit that will stand them in good stead during the abnormal periods they may have after 16, so that it is not lost money: it simply stands to their credit, and gives them a guarantee of benefit in case of unemployment. I am told that public opinion has been definitely formed. Has it been formed on ex parte statements, or on both sides of the case having been stated?
What is the position of affairs? The position of affairs at the moment is that children from the age of 14 to 16 are in the industrial market, are being unemployed, and are kicking about the streets. The educationist says: "You are going to injure the chances of getting the age increased." I reply to that: "The child is now kicking about the streets, and that child is as valuable to me as a temporarily unemployed person as he is to the educationist who has lost touch, finished with him, and cannot deal with him at all."

Mr. COVE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, under this Bill, he pays unemployed benefit to any child under the age of 16 years?

Mr. SHAW: If the Bill becomes an Act, with this Clause in it, a child that has been definitely working for 30 weeks, and has paid the contributions, is entitled to the benefit. Remember, I am not dealing with any children at all who have not definitely left school. I have already offered to the educationists to adopt a form of words whereby a child, if when he has definitely left school, if he is over statutory school age when he has begun to work, when the school has finished with him, I am allowed to insure him. I do not want to injure the chances of the child. All I want to do is to prevent, if I can, what is going on to-day. After all, the Minister of Labour has as much right to look to the future as has the educationist, to know exactly what these children are doing, what trades they are employed in, and what are the conditions. Ministers of Labour in the future as Ministers of Education in the present will desire to see something ahead. I want to see the day come when the Minister of Labour will be able to help these children in their industrial life just as the educationist is helping them in their school life. We will be able to help to prevent them, I hope, from getting into blind alley occupations.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of working-class children in this country between the ages of 14 and 16 are outside the ken of everybody. Nobody is helping them. Only a small proportion of these children are really helped along the road in the present condition of affairs, and I say to hon. Members, whatever be their ideal, in three, five or ten years hence to raise the age to 16, do not prevent me at the moment from doing what I can in my sphere to help those who have gone out of the school. That is the whole point of the argument. We all of us start out with the same ideal; how best to act so as to help the child. What I have said is that I think my way is the better; but I have said to the educationist: "after you have definitely let the child go from school do not stand in his way of entering into a State scheme of insurance that will give him a guarantee of help for the future." I am prepared to meet hon. Members in every
way. I am prepared to meet them in Committee in every way in order to deal with this particular question and in order to prevent the children being pushed into work instead of going to school. All that I am prepared to do, if the educationist will say to me in return: "We have been forced to give the child up, and therefore we will not play a dog-in-the-manger policy and prevent you.

Miss LAWRENCE: If under this Unemployment Insurance scheme you pay money to persons who have not yet entered industry is it not possible within the Bill to pay maintenance grants to keep the children at school?

Mr. SHAW: This Bill, I explained on Second Reading, is intended to be purely an Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is not an Old Age Pension Bill. It is not an Education Bill. It is not a Special Grants Bill. It is an Unemployment Insurance Bill purely and simply, and I hope the Committee will discuss it from that point of view. I am hoping for the time to come when we shall have coordination, but co-ordination in a form infinitely wider than that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North - West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). At the present moment here is our problem. I am trying to deal with the problem of the moment in such a way as to bring alleviation to the great mass of our people. It was said on the first occasion that the Bill was so drawn as to make it possible for the children to draw benefit almost immediately, with the consequence of giving an incentive to the parents to send them into a blind-alley job with a few weeks' work, for the purpose stated. I said to those who opposed the Bill on those lines: "I will give you an absolute guarantee"—the Bill is watertight now—and I do so now, again— "that this form of words shall be altered so that the child shall not receive benefit under any conditions unless he has wholly left school, and been working for some time." I am prepared to do that. Is there anything wrong about it? Because we have to deal with these children until such times as our ideal has been realised. That seems to me to be the position of affairs.

Mr. MACLEAN: A child who has left school at 14 years of age a year ago, and who has been working for six weeks of three months, is now, at the age of 15.
unemployed, and will get no benefit when this Bill has passed. Is that not so He must have paid at least 30 weeks of insurance contributions, and that does not help the child of 15.

Mr. SHAW: I think the position is perfectly plain. In order to prevent anybody saying that this is an incentive to send the children to work, I say: "No, there shall be no incentive to send the child to work. There shall be no benefit until 30 contributions have been paid." Further, it is, I think, a direct incentive for the parents to keep their children at school. I know something of working-class life. I was one of the children of the masses. I know how these things go. I was a half-timer at 10 years. I know the thing from a practical point of view, and what I am talking about. I say that when the average working-class parent is faced with the alternative of sending his child into work and allowing 6d. per week to be deducted for insurance contributions, he is likely to say, "No, I will allow the lad to continue at school." Incentive is all the other way.
I am told that we are taking money away from the children and giving it to adults. Not at all. Every farthing the child pays into this Insurance Fund will be more than repaid, probably before the boy reaches the age of 21. Experience has proved that there is a lack of employment between 16 and 18 caused by the fact that when a big wage is demanded the boy is sent away and a younger one put in his place. I have got to deal with facts as they are, not with what they may be 10 years or 20 years hence. These are the facts as I see them to-day. I am told that the local authorities and the parents will be influenced in a backward direction by this Bill. I do not for one moment believe it. The fact is that the local authorities now have the newer, if they felt so disposed, to raise the age to 15. Look at the facts in the case. The fact is that the local authorities, though having the power, have not increased the age. It is idle for any of us to blind ourselves to the facts. We are told, too, that we cannot send these children to school, as everyone would like, because there are no schools for them. I want to put this to the educationists: If we got the age raised to 16, where are the schools? How long will it take to get them? During the time we
are getting the schools, are these children to pitch about the streets as now I want to put all these points to the Committee, because I believe that arguments genuinely inspired by educational enthusiasm have been based upon wrong premises. The other side of the argument has not been seen. I ask educationists to agree with me. We both desire the best for the children. I say again I will give hon, Members everything they want in Committee to prevent the stereotyping of this age. I will give them everything they want, within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, to guarantee that the child has a fair chance but I ask hon. Members to meet me and to accept what I say that any child kicking abouts the streets, any unemployed child, that some institution shall take him by the hand and keep him. I ask them to meet me and to see if we can alter the Bill so that no child shall he insured unless he or she has definitely left school whatever the age may be. I will alter the Bill on those lines. But I am going to ask the educationists who want the alteration to allow me to have this Money Resolution, and to take my definite assurance that in Committee I will not only respect the views of the Committee, without asking the House to change them in any way at all, but I will do my level best to give every satisfaction so that no child may be kicking about the streets unemployed without some institution taking it up and helping it.

Mr. E. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech, as he always does, with great vigour and apparently proceeding from a great and warm heart. I hope, however, he will himself take the advice that he has given on more than one occasion, and that is to remember that no party should pretend to have a monopoly in this matter. I must confess as I listened to his speech, and more particularly that part of it where he dealt with the points of procedure arising out of this Resolution after the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment, it seemed to me that the Committee was nearly as mystified with the right hon. Gentleman as the right hon. Gentleman has been mystified by the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). Surely the position is perfectly plain. The right hon. Gentle-
man appeals to the Committee to give him just the one thing he wants, which is this paragraph (b), and he says that if he gets paragraph (b) he will be prepared to exercise the spirit of the utmost accommodation when the matter gets into Committee to meet the feelings of the Committee as to the best way of dealing with the problem of these young persons. Yes, but he will not be able to do it. He cannot come to this present Committee, put down a Resolution on the Paper, and ask the Committee to vote the money for one purpose, and then, subsequently, use it for another purpose! That is what all of us in all parts of the House—who object to this idea of Unemployment Insurance for these young persons as opposed to education—have pressed. The point is that, once having passed the paragraph, we shall have tied our hands. Therefore I find myself unable to yield to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that we should agree here and now to paragraph (b) and leave the working out of it to be put right upstairs.
I think a great many hon. Members wish to speak, and all I wish to say is that I think we are on the high road to making up our minds on the main point. There are one or two observations I wish to make. In listening to the Debates which have taken place I have been rather struck with one thing. I have no doubt myself that it is very possible to overstate the damage that a provision of this kind would do from the point of view of its reaction upon the minds of parents in encouraging them to prefer industry to education. On the other hand, while I defer to the right hon. Gentleman's experience, and I am naturally prone to give great weight to anything anyone says from their own experience, I do myself find it a rather fantastic exaggeration to suggest that the parent is not going to he deterred from keeping his child at school by the fact that he will have to pay a few coppers a week towards insurance.
The right hon. Gentleman, in making that suggestion, was rather relying upon his own qualities to perform a kind of intellectual conjuring trick. The whole Committee is interested in finding the right solution on this question. I know perfectly well, and we all know, the state of affairs to which the right hon. Gentle-
man has referred in which these young children are unable to find employment and acquire bad habits and run about the streets. All that is very undesirable and deplorable, and we all know perfectly well that the juvenile children's centres have facilities for supporting the children who come into them. Therefore, it is with great justification that the right hon. Gentleman has come forward with his Bill. I am bound to say, however, that I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) was right when he developed last week his reasons for thinking that the Government had found in this matter the wrong solution, and I am going to say why. The Minister of Labour says: "You who talk about education say that this proposal is going to have such a deleterious effect upon the education of the children, but how many local authorities are there to-day who have hitherto raised the age of the children attending the schools?" I do not know how many there are, but there are very few. I would like to ask if this proposal is going to make it any easier.
I look upon this matter from the point of view of those who care for education without any fanaticism, and I take a most serious view of this provision. When I had the honour to hold the post of the President of the Board of Education, I received more than one deputation on this subject, and I remember one of those deputations was headed by the present Prime Minister, who urged me to have regard to the scandal of these young Children running about the streets at the school age of 15 or 16. If that was a good thing to press upon a Conservative Minister, why is it not good for the. Labour Government to consider the same remedy which they pressed upon us. I do not express any view as to whether it is or whether it is not possible to raise the school age, but what I do say is, that unless hon. Members opposite were quite clear that it was a wise thing to do, they were not acting with a due sense of responsibility in trying to make me do it.

Mr. B. SMITH: Who stopped the school building programme?

Mr. WOOD: It is impossible to-day to raise the school age for the whole country. I said that when I was on the Treasury Bench and I say it now. The Minister of Labour will remember that his supporters
said very different things when they sat in opposition. Therefore, let me make it clear that what they can do, and what they ought to do is to use all the means at their disposal, and all the means in their power, to encourage local authorities, where it is possible, to take advantage of their power to make bye-laws which the President of the Board of Education has said he will be prepared to consider on their merits.

Mr. SHAW: That is being done now.

Mr. WOOD: Then let us go on with it, and use the money which you want to spend on this scheme to make that move by the local authorities easier for them and easier for the parents.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would you agree to that being done?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to ask me that question. Does he ask me what I think of this proposal?

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in favour of allowing the money the Government would grant towards these children to be used by the education authorities for the maintenance of the children who remain at school?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a conclusion of my speech. I shall express my opinion about paragraph (b) if the right hon. Gentleman goes to a Division on this proposal. What I hope the Minister of Labour will be willing to do is, first of all, to recognise that the suggestion which he makes as to procedure really will not work. I do not ask him to prejudge the question whether those who want to get rid of this paragraph are right or wrong. All we are asking is that we should have the question sent to a Committee, where it can be argued on its merits, and then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and his friends will be able to make any suggestion they like as to the expenditure of this or any other fund provided by the State or the local authority. All we ask is that the door should not be closed on the possibility of a full discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is no air of mystery about what I am saying, and I am trying to state my
own view on this proposal. I suggest that unless the right hon. Gentleman can make it plain what is the actual effect of this proposal, I shall record my opinion in regard to paragraph (b) if the matter goes to a Division.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I desire to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) in the appeal they have made to the Minister of Labour to withdraw this Financial Resolution, and bring forward another Resolution in its stead. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Labour. Clearly ho is desirous to do the best thing for the children. We all recognise the honesty and sincerity of his purpose, and if it were technically possible to do what he suggests in Committee, for my part I should be very glad to meet him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, however, has pointed out an unanswerable objection by saying that the. Minister of Labour will be unable in Committee to do what he seems anxious to do. Therefore I have no hesitation in urging the Minister to withdraw this Resolution. Since our Debate last Tuesday I have given renewed attention to this question, and the more I look into the proposal of the Government the less I like it. At one time I thought there were signs that it would be possible to meet the Minister of Labour by accepting some such Amendment as he has suggested. I am afraid, however, that it will not do. I am afraid that no Amendment will really meet the case which has been put forward from these benches and from the benches opposite against the proposal of the Government. There was a time when children in this country—

Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that what he desires to do cannot he done under the Insurance Bill?

Mr. FISHER: Not at all. My proposal is that this paragraph should be withdrawn, and that a new Money Resolution, in wider terms, should be introduced in its place.

Mr. GREENALL: What would the right hon. Gentleman propose to do with
the money under the new Resolution Would it be for insurance or for education?

Mr. FISHER: That is, of course, a very fair question to ask, but that is a matter which I hope the Committee will discuss. Some will take one view, and others another, but I desire that the whole question should he submitted to the Committee. The main issue has been discussed so often, so fully, and so adequately, that I do not propose to say very much more upon it, but there are one or two reflections which occur to me. There was a time, not so very long ago, when children in this country went out to work in factories at the age of eight, and I ask myself the question: Supposing that in those days the Government had come down and introduced a Measure for making those children insurable persons ender a general Act of industrial insurance, would such a Measure have promoted or would it have retarded the development of education in this country? I do not think there can be any doubt that, if such a Measure had been proposed in those days, it would have raised a very formidable impediment in the ray of the development of the education of children in this country. I do not desire in any way to take up an exaggerated or fanatical attitude on this question. I agree that there has been exaggeration on both sides, but I submit to the Minister of Labour that he has both exaggerated the advantages of the courses of instruction which he proposes to give to these children, and minimised the possible injury to the development of education which his Measure will involve.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, speaking on this subject last Tuesday, told us that these instruction centres had not had a fair trial, that we had not explored their possibilities; and he intimated that they might be considerably improved. From that I dissent. I think we have explored the possibilities of these instruction centres. I do not believe that they are capable of any great improvement, and for reasons which are essential to the nature of the case. At this moment the average amount of instruction which young persons between 16 and 18 receive in these centres is only five weeks. What can you do in five weeks? Practically
nothing. It is education given under the most disheartening, the most depressing, and the most adverse circumstances. It is quite true that possibly, by a great deal of care and trouble, you might introduce a few improvements in these instruction centres, but, if that be so, may I suggest to. the Minister that he should introduce those improvements into those centres which now exist for young persons between the ages of 16 and 18, and that only after he has discovered the extent to which he can improve those centres should he come to the House of Commons with proposals that boys and girls between 14 and 16 should be made insured persons? Surely, it is only common sense to improve the centres so that young persons between 16 and 18 may get some value out of them, before taking this very questionable step, which, in the opinion of the whole educational world, is likely to embarrass and impede the course of secondary and further education.
I think the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education have both underrated the deleterious effect which their proposal is likely to exert on post-elementary education, and I am really surprised that such a proposal should have come from that particular quarter, because, when I was President of the Board of Education I was continually being pressed by members of the Labour party, and by some Unionists, to raise the school age, and I remember reading with a great deal of sympathy a number of resolutions which were passed in trade union congresses in favour of raising the school age to 16. The Minister now comes forward with a proposal which certainly cannot assist that object, and which, in the view of the whole educational world; is calculated to impede it. The educational world may be wrong. We may be foolish. We may have no experience of school—

Mr. MAXTON: This has nothing to do with school.

Mr. FISHER: It has something to do with instruction. We may be wrong, but, at the same time, we assure the Minister that he is taking a great risk, and that he is taking that rid; for very small value—for five weeks' indifferent schooling in a year. That is the value that he is going to get, from this proposal, which runs counter to the whole spirit and
guiding principle of our newest educational legislation, which impedes the ideal that progressive educationists throughout the House of Commons warmly cherish, and which is opposed by every member of the educational profession. I have here a letter from a director of education in a great industrial town in the North of England. I asked him for his opinion before the Debate on Tuesday, and he sent me this letter:
"It is, unfortunately, true that in this region"—
that is his own district—
even in the secondary school system as it exists now, with free secondary schools and modest maintenance allowances, the temptation to leave school for wages sometimes overpoweringly strong in parents. The child loses his secondary school education, and to substitute unemployment insurance for wages is merely to widen the area and to deepen the intensity of inducement to withdraw children from schools halfway through their secondary school course. I can think of nothing better designed to break into the secondary school system of the country, particularly so far as the children of the workers are concerned, than the Government proposal; and it should he remembered that for 15 years or more the board has been patiently and persistently developing, bit by bit, the facilities for affording secondary education to the children of the working classes. If the money is available for the provision of unemployment insurance for children from 14 to 16, it would, in my judgment, be far better spent in the form of maintenance allowance, conditional on continued education, rather than in a form of inducement to a child to walk out of school and into the streets to receive what is often called money for nothing.
That is a very weighty opinion, and it comes from a man who has worked all his life in developing education in our great industrial towns. I put it very earnestly to the Minister of Labour that he should accept this suggestion to withdraw paragraph (b) of the present Resolution, and substitute another in its place.

Mr. SHAW: rose—

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I want to put, it to you that, during the course of this Debate, since the Amendment was moved, six speakers have taken part, all from one or other of the Front Benches. I ask, is that a fair distribution of the time of the Committee?

Mr. LANSBURY: And may I remind you that three of those Gentlemen made identically the same speeches that they
made last Tuesday? I think it is perfectly monstrous.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): That is a, matter for the discretion of the Chair, I understand that the Minister is going to make an announcement.

Mr. LANSBURY: That does not get. over the others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SHAW: I have listened to the discussion, and I think it boils itself down to this, that the opponents of this part of the Money Resolution fear that, if it he carried, they will be hampered and crippled in the Committee in the expression of their views. I have no desire to cripple anyone, and, on the definite understanding which the speeches have plainly given, that it will be understood that in Committee the whole question can be considered without prejudice, I am prepared to accept the Amendment to withdraw paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I am exceedingly sorry that hon. Members should have thought that I or anyone else had spoken too long. I had to move the Amendment, and I had to honour the Committee by submitting what arguments my intelligence might provide, in order that they might accept it. I want to be quite clear as to what are the pledges which my right hon. Friend has suggested he is asking from us, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in the Committee. We, ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this paragraph and to substitute for it a Resolution drawn in the widest possible manner, in which the money he is now offering to us through this Resolution may be applied to any purpose that the Committee think fit, within the scope of the Bill; and we guarantee that we would not substantially oppose that Money Resolution in they House, But we do not guarantee that we will accept any scheme of compulsory insurance for any boys and girls between 14 and 16. Let that be quite plain. We are prepared to discuss it, but, as at present advised, I should vote against any scheme for insurance, and I should ask that we should be allowed to submit some alternative way of spending the Government money proposed to be spent under this Resolution.

Mr. PERRY: Will it be in order for money raised under the insurance scheme to be used for any other purpose?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not yet spoken in the Debate. I have listened, and I have accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he assents to the elimination of this paragraph from the Resolution. I agree with him that anything that is in order in Committee may he discussed, and we will not object to it being discussed, but I do not want this Committee or the Committee upstairs to be under any misapprehension. It. is impossible for us to give any assent to the discussion of anything which the Chairman upstairs may rule out of order. All we say is that, whatever is in order, we shall have no objection to it being discussed.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: rose—

An HON. MEMBER: Another Front Bench man!

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I am always to the front in any fray. I am wondering now whether some of my Friends behind the right hon. Gentleman who have seemed by their interruptions, and even by their speeches, to lend sympathy to the Amendment have not been led into a trap. I am extremely doubtful about it, because it appears now that this part of the Resolution is going to be withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman, who thinks that the money later on to be secured in the way suggested in the Bill could be used in some other way than is immediately suggested, whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), it is quite clear, moved his Amendment with an entirely different purpose. Although it is known that children leave school at 14, go to work, get unemployed and walk about the streets, with no kind of control and no assistance of any kind, the right hon. Gentleman, attempting to deal at least for the moment with that problem, believing that later on the school age may be raised or that a number of other things might be done, proposes that pending that period something definite should be done to assist these youngsters to enter into the industrial field, and the Minister has accepted the Amendment believing that something was going to be accomplished, whereas it is clear now from what the
right hon. Gentleman has said that you have been led into a cul de sac, and that if you carry out what has been suggested nothing is going to be done for the children because the Minister says he will not have them in insurance. Then where is the money to come from? The proposition is that the children should pay a certain sum between 14 and 16, and the employers and the State should pay a proportion. If all the right hon. Gentleman's opposition has really been to the principle of insurance for young persons at any age when once they are forced into the industrial field, I believe him to be wrong. I do not care what education authorities or specialists and people who know very little of our working class conditions have to say on the subject at all. I do not care if the whole teaching profession is in favour of ignoring the right of these children to be considered once they are forced from the school into the factory or the workshop.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have been proposing the right thing. It would have been better, perhaps, to have more elasticity in the Resolution so that the Committee could have dealt with the subject in a different way, either by assisting the parents to continue the children's education or the money secured by those who were inclined to take advantage of a continued system of education. That would have been a sensible way. We might have extended the Resolution, but to withdraw it altogether trusting that the right hon. Gentleman would allow you to go on with the collection of the money, using it for the purpose he and you might wish—he says he will not allow you to collect anything. He objects entirely to children, whether they are continuing at school or whether they are forced from the school into the workshop, remaining derelict until some scheme, I suppose of State assistance apart altogether from insurance, is adopted. That may be good theory, but it is bad practice. It is not Liberal policy. You may be old-fashioned individualists if you like, but that is not really the basis of your policy, to admit that the system drives the child from the school to the factory at 14, and then say, because you have some idea that in the ages to come you will keep the child at school till 16, in the meantime you will do nothing from the period between the
14 years' standard and the 16 years' standard, that is not good policy. If my Labour friends take my advice they will absolutely refuse to allow the right hon. Gentleman to accept that interpretation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme. It is occasionally very necessary that either on one side of the House or the other there should be someone who does not care a damn for any of them.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have listened to the speeches, and particularly to the explanations and expositions which have been given with regard to the Amendment. I am one of those who believe that the child should be kept in the school until it is 16. I am one of those who are against the Clause in the Bill which invites the House to insure the young person between 14 and 16, and I am entirely dissatisfied with the Minister's statement that this is going to do something for the child between 14 and 16. As a matter of fact, the child of 14 who enters industry to-day and comes under the scope of this Clause, if it should happen to pass, will not receive any unemployment benefit until it has worked for 30 weeks, which brings the child, even assuming it is fortunate enough to get a situation immediately on leaving school, to practically 14¾ before it is entitled to receive unemployment benefit. But there are to-day large numbers of children under 16 who have left school at 14 but have not yet been fortunate enough to find employment, if it is fortunate for a child of that age to be employed, and the Bill will not affect their circumstances at all. They are left entirely outside the scope of this Resolution and of *the Bill. It is really the child of the future that this Clause, if it is passed, is going to affect. I want to know what the Government is going to do for the child who has left school and is unemployed to-day. It is quite beside the mark to say there are no educational establishments suitable or numerous enough to give facilities for keeping them at school. You can find large numbers of mansion houses up and down the country. You can find in your large towns great houses which their previous occupants declare are now too large or to expensive. Why not pass an Emergency Act taking possession of them for the purposes of education? The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), when a Member of a Coalition Government, could pass emergency Measures night after night for all purposes not affecting the conditions or the circumstances of the working classes. You could get the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who was the first Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government, supporting emergency Measures to take things over and control them on behalf of vested interests. Why cannot you do those things now when it is a question of the children of the working classes? I am in favour of keeping the child at school until 16, as is shown by Amendments on the Order Paper. I have put down an Amendment in favour of maintenance grants, for children who are kept at school between 14 and 16, of 5s. a week. I hope hon. Members opposite who have been priding themselves on their love of education will help to carry that Amendment. What is the use of theorising about education for the workers? What is the use of providing teachers for the education of the workers' children unless you are prepared to meet the economic circumstances of the parents and make provision for them which will render it unnecessary to send their children out to work in order to implement their meagre income? I am against children working in industry at too early an age. Those who pride themselves upon being educationists and upon their desire that the children shall be kept at school until the age of 16 have not gone into the question sufficiently well to find out whether the parents are in an economic state to keep the children at school, so that they may imbibe all the benefits of our educational system. The two points which I have suggested ought to commend themselves to the Government., namely, to keep the children at school and to satisfy the parents that they are, at least, going to be placed in a position, so far as their economic circumstances are concerned, that shall enable them to keep the children at school, and give them the benefit of that education which many of us did not secure when we were children.
I do not yield to the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) or to the ex-President of the Board of Education, the right hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher) in my desire for
the education of the children; but very few hon. Members have had the opportunity of reading and studying the effect of the Amendment which has been moved. They do not know the terms of it.

Mr. MASTERMAN: It is only to omit paragraph (b).

Mr. MACLEAN: By omitting the paragraph, you omit the power in this Resolution to get the money necessary for the payment for these children between the ages of 14 and 16.

Mr. MASTERMAN: The Government have promised to bring up a wider Clause, which will enable us to use the Government's share of the money in the best possible way within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. SHAW: I was assured that it would be possible, if I withdrew the paragraph, to deal in Committee with the matter on an absolutely free basis; in other words, that we should have absolute freedom to discuss it. I am accepting the Amendment on those conditions.

Mr. SHORT: On a point of Order. The Committee is now being asked to accept the Amendment on certain conditions; but I submit that if we accept the Amendment it will be impossible upstairs to discuss anything appertaining to this question. The only way in which we can discuss the issues now before the Committee, when the Bill gets upstairs, will be by the right hon. Gentleman bringing in another Money Resolution.

Mr. MASTERMAN: My appeal at the beginning of the Debate was that the Government should withdraw this paragraph and bring in a Wider Money Resolution. The whole Debate has proceeded on that basis. I understood that my right hon. Friend had agreed to do that. He certainly can do it.

Mr. SHAW: In the interests of a fair understanding, let me say that I am accepting this Amendment on the understanding that in Committee I will submit some other Clause, and that every Member of the Committee will have the fullest right and freedom to suggest Amendments. If that be not the case, the appeal made to me is on different lines altogether. If it be the case that by accepting this Amendment I automatically rule out any possibility of dealing with this subject in Committee
upstairs, then I withdraw my acceptance of the Amendment, and I will let the matter go to a vote now.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think we are entitled to a declaration from the Government, saying upon which leg they are going to stand. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept the Amendment, and he made a declaration on that point 15 minutes ago. I accepted his statement with the one proviso, which is the correct one—namely, that any proposal made in Committee should be in order. It is, of course, impossible for us in any way to determine what the order of the Committee upstairs may be. The proper course for this Committee is to accept the Amendment, subject to whatever may be decided to be in order by the Chairman of the Committee upstairs.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether we are not confusing two things? Would it be in order upstairs if this Money Resolution were withdrawn to move any Amendments which would deal with the maintenance of children at school?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whatever the Minister has understood or whatever hon. Members understand, is not as a result of any ruling from the Chair, because I have not been asked to rule on the point. The position, as I understand it, is, that the Government could certainly withdraw the Resolution and bring in a fresh Resolution. If the paragraph be omitted from the Resolution, when the Bill comes before the Committee upstairs, it might not be in order to move or amend the corresponding Clause in the Bill, but I cannot rule on that point, because it is a hypothetical question.

Mr. SHAW: May I ask for your ruling on this point? If this Money Resolution be withdrawn can I in Committee upstairs submit a Clause to take the place of the Clause that is now in the Bill dealing with children from the ages of 14 to 16—a Clause which would imply on behalf of the State payment of a different kind, without a preliminary Money Resolution?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would be in order in doing that. A Clause which would increase the charge must be passed as a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. PRINGLE: Before the Minister withdraws the paragraph, is it not his duty to ascertain the effect of the paragraph from his skilled advisers, rather than to depend upon a ruling from the Chair upon a hypothetical case?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am glad that this argument has taken place, because it brings out very clearly the fact that this Committee does not really understand what has been done or what is likely to happen if we accept the Amendment. It is absolutely necessary that this matter should be discussed before we permit the withdrawal of this Money Resolution. I am in favour of its withdrawal, provided that other means are taken for safeguarding the interests of the children.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Hear, hear.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is what we all want to do, but that is exactly what we shall not be able to do if the Clause be withdrawn. I want to see the children kept at school until the age of 16, but I want at the same time to safeguard the interests of the children and the economic interests of their parents while the children are being kept at school. If we withdraw this paragraph, this Committee will not have authorised the payment of money provided by Parliament as an offset against the contributions of children between the ages of 14 and 16. While it would not authorise such a payment, it would not rule out the employment of children in industry, and those children are being compelled to pay contributions for unemployment insurance. The Money Resolution authorises the payment of money out of the Exchequer, and the Bill, as it received a Second Reading, authorised a levy upon the children between the ages of 14 and 16.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. MACLEAN: If I am wrong, then the Committee is wrong.

Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend suggests that we can impose a contribution upon the children if we do not pass this Money Resolution now. In the Bill Clause 5, which deals with insurance of children, cannot be discussed apart from this Money Resolution and, consequently, a contribution could not be imposed upon children between the ages of 14 and 16 under that Clause without this Money Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: In that case, it simply means that if this paragraph in the Money Resolution goes out, that particular Clause in the Bill goes out.

Mr. PRINGLE: indicated assent.

Mr. MACLEAN: We should still leave the child in industry between the ages of 14 and 16. The Minister of Labour could not do as he thinks he can do, namely, bring in a Money Resolution in Committee upstairs.

Mr. MASTERMAN: He can do it here.

Mr. MACLEAN: On the Report stage?

Mr. MASTERMAN: The thing is as simple as can be to those who are familiar with Parliamentary practice. A Money Resolution cannot he carried in Committee upstairs. What we ask my right hon. Friend to do, and what everybody thought he had agreed to do, was done by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last month under similar criticism, namely, to withdraw the paragraph and bring in a wider paragraph so that we can propose other methods of using this money, not necessarily for compulsory insurance. We could pass the paragraph on the Floor of the House, for which purpose we have offered to give facilities.

Mr. SHAW: I may repeat that I agree to accept the Amendment, but I give no undertaking as to the kind of paragraph which I shall bring before the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is going to consult those interests, so that we may try to make some progress in this important matter, or is it that he is too proud to consult those interests?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not part of the question before the Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: We now understand where we are. We understand what the hon. Member suggests, and what the Minister of Labour wants, and we appreciate the fact that there is a difference between them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) wants to delete this paragraph in order that the Government may bring in a wider paragraph, and says that members of his party, and possibly hon. Members of the opposite side, are prepared to give
facilities to pass it provided that it meets with their views. The Minister of Labour says that he will not pledge himself as to the scope of the Resolution which he may bring in. The whole position, so far a-s I can see, is in the air.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: You support your side.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am supporting what I consider to be the interests of the children.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: That is your side.

Mr. MACLEAN: I hope so. I am sorry to see the hon. and gallant Member who supports the interests of the children on another side.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: That is too thin.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is like the weather. I ask the Minister of Labour to state whether in the paragraph which he is prepared to substitute for the paragraph which he has agreed to withdraw, applying as it will to children between the ages of 14 and 16, he will apply the principle of maintenance to those children whose parents are prepared to keep them at school during the time when those parents are unemployed. That is something which we all Want to know; at least I want to know, and others of my colleagues desire to know, because we are not prepared to sacrifice the interests of the children, as far as they go even under this Bill, for some purely hypothetical consideration which might not meet the circumstances in the same degree as we can secure even under the terms of the Resolution which is now being discussed. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he should take all the facts of the situation into consideration, and examine the interests of the children much more closely than he has had the opportunity of doing in the short time during which this Money Resolution has been done.
We know that there is no Member of the House who is more desirous than he of securing to children between 14 and 16 the widest opportunities of education, but, taking into consideration all the discussion that has already taken place both on the Bill itself and the Amendment to this Resolution, I am certain that the House would he prepared to give the
Minister of Labour the widest possible scope in any amended Money Resolution which he brings forward, which will go to safeguard the economic interest of the parent, and at the same time provide facilities for the continued education of the children. We want to see the children out of industry. The right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) spoke of the necessity of getting those who are old upon the old age pension list at the earliest possible moment, so that they can go out of industry and be able to provide an avenue of employment for some who are at present unemployed. We agree with that. That has been advocated on these benches years before we came into this House—that is a theory which we have been advocating for many years. But we do not want to have it on a contributory basis. We want old age pensions given to the individual, not because he has had 3d. taken off his unemployment insurance and handed over to an old age pensioners' fund but we want the old people at the age of 65—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling rather wide of the, question under discussion. The question of old age pensions is not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: I appreciate that, but reference was made to it by the right hon. Member, and he was allowed to go on, and I thought that I was going to get the same latitude. As I am not allowed to go into that, may I say that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, we want to see the children taken out of industry? We want to have their educational future safeguarded, but at the same time we want to see those children who have already left school, who may have worked even for a few weeks or may not have been able to find any employment since they left school, children whose ages now are 14, 14½, 15 or 15½, children who are not entitled and will not be entitled to unemployment benefit even if this Money Resolution is passed, taken out of the horrible condition in which they are at present in which they cannot find employment, and have no means of livelihood other than that which their parents may be able to afford, and have no widening of their prospects in life either through the extension of education or a training in trade. We want those children to be looked after equally with those who are
at present in school. We want to see the child life of our country preserved and the educational facilities handed on to them, and not kept as the monopoly of any section of the community. That can only be done by the House of Commons, irrespective of Governments, agreeing to give to the child not. merely the education to which it is entitled, but also to give to the parents something that will safeguard the economic circumstances of the home, so that the children will be able, materially as well as intellectually, to derive benefits from their education.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think that the Committee is in some doubt on two points. First, as to what were the original provisions of the Bill in relation to the insurance of children between 14 and 16, and second as to what is the present attitude of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) has argued as if the proposals in the Bill were designed to benefit children between 14 and 16, and in that belief he endeavoured to persuade the Committee that the Government in accepting my right hon. Friend's Amendment were doing an ill-service to children between 14 and 16. These observations were based on a misconception of the effects of the provisions of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are not designed to benefit children between 14 and 16. They are intended to exploit children between 14 and 16. It is only necessary to look at the Actuary's Report on the financial effect of these provisions to see that the children are brought in to make contributions to the Fund and not to get anything out of it.
If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at page 7 of the Actuary's Report he will see that the estimated annual expenditure in respect of benefits to children between 14 and 16 was £280,000. that the estimated annual expense of administration was £120,000 and that the contribution to the cost of approved courses of instruction were £100,000. making a total of £500,000, while on the other hand the income in respect of these children during the deficiency period was to amount to £1,500,000. So that during the deficiency period the Insurance Fund was going to benefit to the extent of £1,000,000 out of these children between 14 and 16. I do not think that the Committee can regard that as philanthropic It is a contribution partly by them, partly
by the employers and partly by the State, but the entire annual income is estimated at £1,500,000. If you go beyond the deficiency period you will find that the amount of the income would be £930,000. So there, again, on balance, the children would be contributing to the extent of £430,000.
7.0 P.M.
Mark this also. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has pointed out, until a child has contributed for 30 weeks he does not become entitled to benefit. That means that a very large proportion of those children who are unemployed would never in any conditions become entitled to benefit. In certain areas where unemployment is worse, in the area represented by my hon. Friend, or in the Sheffield area, there is no opportunity for employment for any child leaving school. Those children would go on week by week and month by month. They would get no benefit, and there would be no provision for instruction, and nothing would be done for them. You would only take the children in the areas where employment is good. They would come in and contribute, and after eight months' employment they might obtain benefit. But in the really depressed areas there would be no benefit at all to the great majority of those who are unemployed. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to call upon the Government to make some real provision for these children, and it was on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman accepted my right hon. Friend's Amendment that some alternative provision was going to be made that would do some good to those between 14 and 16. But apparently the right hon. Gentleman has no proposal in his mind, no rabbit in his hat, and is quite destitute of expedients. The last edition of the Government's intentions is that, if this Amendment be accepted, then when the Bill goes upstairs to Committee the Committee will be unable to consider any proposals at all so far as children between 14 and 16 are concerned. I suggest that this opportunity should be taken of demanding something better than this from the Government. They have prided themselves on being in favour of non-contributory insurance altogether. In 1921, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier in the course of this Debate, he moved an Amendment—it was then in order—for non-contributory insurance.
He was also allowed to do it in 1922 under another ruling of the Chair, and he was supported on those occasions by hon. Members who are now members of the Government.
The present Secretary of State for War said the Labour party had always been in favour of non-contributory insurance. Here you, first of all, do not give them insurance, and you make them contribute to the insurance of other people. I say that is monstrous. There is no insurance for the child who looks for work and can not get it for eight months at all, and then, if the child gets work, his money to the extent of £1,000,000, during the deficiency period, is taken for the benefit of other insured people. That is a contributory scheme of the worst kind. It is making the children contribute to the insurance of other people. That is done by the people who are advocates of noncontributory insurance. Let me point out what is still more significant. The Labour party have always suggested that they were the only people really interested in raising the school age. Here you have an actuarial report which is based on the
permanent employment of children between 14 and 16. It is the whole financial basis of the future of the scheme for the deficiency period. There is, first of all, the basis of bringing the deficiency period to an end, and the expenditure of £1,000,000 a year depends on the continued employment of these children. Beyond that period they are going to depend also on the contributions from children from 14 to 16 to the extent of £430,000 a year. This, it seems to me, indicates that they have no hope and do intention of raising the school age. This financial proposition would never have been made, and this actuarial report never presented to this House if the Labour Government had had the slightest intention of raising the school age.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is very difficult to speak after so muddling a Debate. At half-past four I had quite a good speech. At six it was on the wane. Now at seven it is nearly gone. I am going to give you the best I have got. I know how difficult the position of the Minister of Labour is. I know that his heart is paved with good intentions. I know there are other places paved with good intentions. This is one of the most
amazing things that this House has ever seen. Here we have got a Labour Government afraid of doing what they know in their hearts they ought to do. Sometimes I used to despair of other Governments. I knew perfectly well when the Labour Government came in they could not do a quarter of what they promised, but it never occurred to me that they would run away from such a glorious opportunity as this. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the opportunity?"] The opportunity is this. You ought to know it as well as me, but sometimes I think Members opposite do not know as much as they think they do about unemployment. We have enormous juvenile unemployment. It is one of the problems before us. There is no single authority which deals with children in the country which has not pressed for the raising of the school age. I know it is not practical politics and I know it is not party politics, and that is what the Minister of Labour knows too. That is what the Minister of Education knows, but some of us have dared to face unpopularity for what we thought was best for the children of the country, and we are willing to face it now.
This was the time of all others for the Minister of Education to come before the House and make one of those moving appeals which they make to the constituencies, one of those heartbreaking, rending appeals about the condition of our children. [Interruption.] I would like quiet from the Members for Glasgow at least in the House of Commons. If I were a Member for Glasgow I should be quiet to-day of all others. This is the time when even the most hardened reactionary is really worried about juvenile unemployment. This is the time to come with a scheme to raise the school age, I do not say to 16, but even to 15. It would enormously have helped the whole of juvenile unemployment in the country, and also older unemployment. One of the difficulties is taking children into industry between 14 and 16 and then turning them off. It is an iniquitous thing to do, ruinous to the future of industry. I am not commending that. This is the moment when you might make an appeal to the House. If you have any money to spare give it to the necessitous parents and encourage them to keep the children at
school. It is astonishing how a Socialist Government can look their constituents in the face.
This paragraph (b) beats me. I was one who fought hard for juvenile unemployment centres. It is really just a makeshift. We do the best we can, but we cannot do much. What the country needs is to get the whole of the children from 14 to 16 and if possible keep them in school. I think the time will come when people will say it is a positive waste of money to turn the children out from 14 to 16. I do beg the Minister of Labour and the Government altogether to have courage. I would turn them out on this alone and go to the country. I truly would, because we who had to fight in the constituencies know how difficult it has been always fighting against the greedy capitalist who is grinding down the children of the poor. Now you have not got a Capitalist Government, you have got a Labour Government whose heart is aching and bleeding for the children, and yet they dare not raise the school age. I would risk it. Someone said he did not care what the teachers said. I do care what the teachers say. When it comes to a question of the children I go to the experts.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I prefer the mothers any day.

Viscountess ASTOR: The enlightened mothers. I speak as an enlightened mother. All of the enlightened mothers want their children to be educated and really every mother knows the tragedy of a child who has got ability to benefit by education and cannot get it. If there were anything in the world which would make me want to upset the present system under which I live, it would be to see my child able and capable of taking an education and yet not being able to get it. This is the time, and I do beg of the Government to live up to some of their promises. We know perfectly well they cannot live up to them all. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to go as far as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean).

Mr. MACLEAN: You did not come down there when you were in Glasgow.

Viscountess ASTOR: I went, where my work led me. I know there are some Members of the Government who believe
they can get everything—the Kingdom of Heaven without praying and the best of this world without working.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the Noble Lady some latitude. She must keep to the Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: But this is the Amendment. I do not ask the Government to go so far as some of their inure extreme Members, but I do ask them to go as far as enlightened Members of the House of Commons and certainly people most interested in children throughout the country. This is not going to help unemployment among juveniles. There have been splendid speeches made, and the time is ripe. Be courageous and try. If need be go to the country for those principles which you hold so dear.

Mr. SEXTON: In this matter I speak from personal experience. The economic circumstances of my life and the lives of many hon. Gentlemen compelled us to leave school at the age of nine years. They have advanced the age since, but even now in the hurly-burly of life a child generally forgets what it learned at 14. It is all very well to be heroic on this business. The economic condition of affairs in every respect ought to receive first consideration. I have heard speeches since I came into this House to-day from hon. Members who themselves during the last three years have in a business capacity contributed to the reduction of the workers' wages to the tune of £700,000,000 a year. I remember the time when the Lord Privy Seal was employed in a factory at 18s. a. week at a time when he had a small family. How could he be expected under those economic conditions to keep a child at school?
The children are a source of income to the parents. If they are kept at school until they are 16 years of age instead of 14, what will happen? I know cases now where men are not able to keep their children at school, and, in consequence, the children have gone in for the iniquitous system of street trading. These men are only casually employed. They are working from one to three days a week. I am sure from personal experience of the necessity of keeping children at school as long as possible, and I hope that the Minister of Labour will stick to the Clause and get down to
the real root of the evil. What is the present economic condition of the workman? He does not get a sufficient wage to send his children to school.
I have heard with astonishment the declarations from the benches opposite—their sudden fatherly interest in the children. Not more than two or three years ago, when the age was advanced from 12 to 14, there was an outcry from hon. Gentlemen representing the present Opposition all over the country at what they called that Socialist proposal. I congratulate them on their conversion now. But they made capital at that time out of the proposal to increase the school age and they preached industrial thrift to parents with 18s. a week, in order that they might get sufficient dividends to enable them to send their own sons to a university to receive a superior education. Then they went to the constituencies and asked the voters to send them back here again to support the same abominable system. Personally, I would

be delighted to see the age advanced, but I want to know first what is going to be the economic condition of the child? I want conditions changed, so that we may get some kind of system which will enable the parents to keep the child at school and to live in decent comfort. I hope the Labour Minister will stick to his Money Resolution.

Mr. SHAW: In view of the fact that I have accepted the Amendment, I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he had accepted the Amendment.

Mr. SHAW: Yes.

Question put, "That paragraph (b) stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 3: Noes, 359.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[7.23 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Marley, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H

Lieut.-Colonel John Ward and Mr. Hogge.


NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Dalkeith, Earl of


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Brass, Captain W.
Darbishire, C. W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, F. A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bromfield, William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Buckle, J.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Alstead, R.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dawson, Sir Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burman, J. B.
Deans, Richard Storry


Ammon, Charles George
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Dickson, T.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dixon, Herbert


Astor, Viscountess
Caine, Gordon Hall
Dodds, S. R.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Duckworth, John


Ayles, W. H.
Cape, Thomas
Dukes, C.


Baker, Walter
Cassels, J. D.
Duncan, C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dunn, J. Freeman


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dunnico, H.


Banton, G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Barclay, R. Noton
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barnes, A.
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ednam, Viscount


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Church, Major A. G.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Clarry, Reginald George
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Batey, Joseph
Clayton, G. C.
Egan, W. H.


Becker, Harry
Climie, R.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Cluse, W. S.
England, Colonel A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Falconer. J.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Berry, Sir George
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Ferguson, H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Compton, Joseph
FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.


Birkett, W. N.
Cope, Major William
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cove, W. G.
Franklin, L. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bonwick, A.
Crittall, V. G.
Gardner, J, P. (Hammersmith, North)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Lee, F,
Scrymgeour, E.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Linfield, F. C.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Gillett, George M.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sexton, James


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loverseed, J. F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Shepperson, E. W.


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Lunn, William
Sherwood, George Henry


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McCrae, Sir George
Shinwell, Emanuel


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
McEntee, V. L.
Simpson, J. Hope


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McLean, Major A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, T. (Pontetract)


Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Groves, T.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Snell, Harry


Grundy, T. W.
Madan, H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
March, S.
Spoor, Dr. G. E.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Spoor, B. G.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Stamford, T. W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Meller, R. J.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Middleton, G.
Steel, Samuel Strang


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Millar, J. D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Harbord, Arthur
Mills, J. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hardie, George D.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Montague, Frederick
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Harris, Percy A.
Morel, E. D.
Sunlight, J.


Hartington, Marquees of
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Morse, W. E.
Tattersall, J. L.


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Muir, John W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Murray, Robert
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Haycock, A. W.
Murrell, Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Healy, Cahir
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Nichol, Robert
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Thurtle, E.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
O'Connor, Thomas P
Tout, W. J.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Grady, Captain James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Oliver, George Harold
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hirst, G. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hobhouse, A. L.
Owen, Major G.
Viant, S. P.


Hodges, Frank
Palmer, E. T.
Vivian, H.


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Waddington, R.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pease, William Edwin
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pennefather, Sir John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Penny, Frederick George
Warne, G. H.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northrn.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Perring, William George
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Perry, S. F.
Weir, L. M.


Hughes, Collingwood
Philipson, Mabel
Wells, S. R.


Huntingfield, Lord
Phillipps, Vivian
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pielou, D. P.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wignall, James


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Raffan, P. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jewson, Dorothea
Raine, W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Willison, H.


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool.W.Derby)
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, W. Russell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Windsor, Walter


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Remer, J. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Richards, R.
Wintringham, Margaret


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wolmer, Viscount


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Ritson, J.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Keens, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Kennedy, T.
Robertson, T. A.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Kenyon, Barnet
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)



Kindersley, Major G. M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wright, W.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lamb, J. Q.
Romeril, H. G.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Lane-Fox, George R.
Royce, William Stapleton



Laverack, F. J.
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Mr. Masterman and Mr. Herbert


Lawson, John James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
 Fisher.


Leach, W.
Savery, S. S.



Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"
We have now got into a position of extreme difficulty. We have been discussing the main Financial Resolution of this very important Bill and a paragraph of the Resolution has now been removed, the understanding being that the Minister of Labour will bring in sooner or later new proposals in order to embody the wider suggestion.

Mr. SHAW: I gave no undertaking of the kind.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gave any definite undertaking. I am quite sure that it would be the wish of a large number of hon. Members who voted with the Government that the right hon. Gentleman should have time to reconsider his position. It would be quite impossible for us to continue a discussion on the main question with usefulness or with dignity, when a vital matter affecting the whole principle of the Bill has been cut out.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I have risen several times to raise a matter affecting my own constitutents, and I know what I am talking about. Although the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is leading the Debate for the other side, he is entirely wrong. Apart from this question of the children, there is the whole question of the scope of a very important and complicated Bill, and we have very little time for such discussion, thanks to the monopolising of time by the Front Benches.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I still submit, in spite of the desire of the whole House to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman, especially when he knows what he is going to talk about, that the only effect of my proposal would be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to start afresh earlier in the day and would be able to make a longer speech than he could make in the time remaining to-night. It is really necessary that we should know what the views of the Government are. The right hon. Gentleman did quite distinctly state that he was going to move in Committee upstairs
certain suggestions to take the place of the Clause that must now come out. The right hon. Gentleman now denies that he is going to bring forward another Resolution. The Committee is entitled to know on which leg the right hon. Gentleman is going to stand. In order to give him an opportunity of making a definite statement to the House on the attitude of the Government I move the Resolution.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of us sitting on these benches are not satisfied. We do not intend to be always quiet and silent in matters of this character. The question of unemployment is too serious to be allowed to drop as though it was a mere matter of machinery. It is a matter of existence to the people whom we represent, and we are not going to sit down and be continuously lectured by prominent politicians, particularly on the opposite benches—gentlemen who know more about unemployment because they are always unemployed, and are drawing big salaries in return for their unemployment.

Mr. BECKER: Not trade union leaders.

Mr. JONES: Not trade union leaders, because you could not lead anything; you could not lead a cat to a milk can, and you are not worthy of any pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is no good ordering me, because I have never been in order in my life. If I were in order I would tell some of you off. What we are out for, some of us, is to see that questions affecting the lives of the people shall be tackled seriously. You have never tackled them; you have never tackled these problems. I hope that our party will, some time. I am not afraid of being a critic of my own party, because I have worked for over 35 years in the Labour movement, at the street corner surrounded by two men, a boy and a dog. The two men were hostile, the dog was barking, and the boy was humorous at my expense. But we have passed through that period, and now we have a majority of 10,000 in the constituency which I represent. We are not afraid of criticism. But what we want is courage, not to be afraid of the people on the other side, but to stand up to them and tell them what we think of them. I am getting fed up, I tell you straight. I am not going to sit silent on these back benches, and then walk into the Division Lobby. I am
quite prepared to sit on the back benches all the time and every time, but I want to say quite frankly that I am going out into the country to tell our leaders that they have got to have courage, and that if they believe in the things that we stand for, they must stand up against these crowds on the other side. If they are not prepared to do that they are not worthy of our continued support. Below the Gangway and above the Gangway, I do not care what gangway they belong to—it ought to be a hangway in my opinion.
We want to say quite frankly that some of us are not here because we want a job in the House of Commons. We are not here for political position. We are here because all our lives we have fought and worked in the Labour movement, believing that eventually, by the exercise of political power, we would be able to introduce industrial opportunity. That is what we are here for. That is what we are fighting for. I appeal to the leaders of our party to have courage, and to fight for the things for which we stand. I am a Socialist in economics, and a democrat in politics, and whether I keep my seat or lose it, I shall fight for those principles as long as I have the opportunity of doing so. We want honesty, we want courage, we want conviction. I have been convicted a number of times, I have been imprisoned more times than I care to remember, but never for anything of which I am ashamed, and I shall go again if necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some of you should have been there who have not been there. I want you to realise that some of us here are determined that we are not going to be weak or cowardly in the hour of hostility and trial, but that we will fight the battle of the people and fight for democracy, all the time and every time, both industrially and socially.

Mr. SHAW: I hope the Committee will not agree to report Progress. Over an hour ago I agreed to accept this Amendment. Since I agreed to accept the Amendment the discussion has proceeded. When I came to the House to-day—probably through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman)—I knew nothing of this Amendment. It is utterly unreasonable, the Amendment having been accepted, to ask a Government, on the spur of the moment, what its future
action is to be, and I suggest that no reasonable man would ask it. The Government must have time to consider this particular matter, but the other parts of the Financial Resolution have no concern with this part, and I ask the Committee to decline to report Progress.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: The present situation is an illustration of a remark which I have heard repeated time after time since I have been in this House—that when there is an absolute majority, almost unanimity on one side in this House, in nine cases out of ten it is wrong. Never was there a better illustration of this statement than we have at present. Take the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones). He states that the Government want courage, determination and conviction, and that they ought to tackle the problem of unemployment in every one of its phases. Yet what has the Committee just decided almost unanimously to do? They have decided that until such time as the Minister brings in a Financial Resolution dealing with persons between 14 and 16 who are unemployed, we can no longer discuss that subject, and can take no part whatever in considering the welfare of these young people. That is what hon. Members have just decided. What is more, hon. Members have knocked out of their own Bill the most important Clause in the Bill. After all, in the case of adults, if a man or woman has strength and vitality unemployment is not such a terrible thing—at least that is how I used to feel when I was unemployed—as it is in the case of persons who are weak and defenceless. By their votes a moment ago hon. Members have deliberately declared the case of the young and defenceless, of these youngsters who have just left school and gone into factory or workshop, is not to be considered further as part of this Bill until the right hon. Gentleman brings forward a further Financial Resolution permitting it to be done. What has been done, as a matter of fact, is such a stupid thing that it now becomes necessary to report Progress because you have put your Bill into such a state of chaos that it is impossible to proceed. For the present you have put out of its four corners the question of juvenile unemployment, and some of the most important provisions for dealing with that phase of the problem ever proposed by
any Government. That matter is out of the Bill until we make provision to include it again. Hon. Members have trooped into the Division Lobby to say that this provision shall be struck out of the Bill until the Minister comes forward with the necessary Resolution to enable it to be discussed again. Discussion cannot be allowed now on that part of the unemployed problem which relates to children between 14 and 16. Provision for them has been struck out entirely and deliberately. It is quite clear that not only do the Government and their followers require courage and conviction, but they also want knowledge and common sense.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I have been waiting in order to raise other points in connection with this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member says that because this Amendment has been carried by a somewhat large majority, the Bill is in a state of muddle. The Amendment, however, refers to only one Clause out of the 16 Clauses of the sill, and it only means that this one Clause cannot be proceeded with immediately. As soon as the Minister of Labour has come to some agreement with the Treasury and with his colleagues—and I trust with the leaders of the other two parties, or at any rate with those who as a rule take an interest in these matters—another Clause acceptable to the majority of the House can be inserted in Committee on the Bill, in place of the Clause to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. That is

what the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in language of quite unusual exaggeration for him, calls a "muddle." All the rest of the Bill can be discussed, and we have about 20 minutes in which to do it. I hope the Minister will shortly bring in a, new Resolution more acceptable to the House and that some better provision will be made for these children. If we report Progress, then instead of having wasted the greater part of the afternoon we shall have wasted the whole afternoon. This discussion was finished when the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept the Amendment, but the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) used his undoubted eloquence and powers of persuasion and managed to rouse two or three hon. Gentlemen to go into the Division Lobby. It has simply been a waste of time, and I desire to raise other matters on the Bill, but I see at once that the Chairman is moving uneasily and will probably call me to order if I do so. So I content myself by protesting strongly against the Motion to report Progress. We have wasted enough time already, and for Heaven's sake let us get on. I hope the Motion will be defeated and that we may get on with matters connected with the other 15 Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. SHAW rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 122.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Broad, F. A.
Dodds, S. R.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Bromfield, William
Duckworth, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Dukes, C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buckle, J.
Dunn, J. Freeman


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Dunnico, H.


Alstead, R.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Ammon, Charles George
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Astor, Viscountess
Church, Major A. G.
Egan, W. H.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Climie, R.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Cluse, W. S.
England, Colonel A.


Baker, Walter
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Falconer, J.


Banton, G.
Compton, Joseph
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Barclay, R. Noton
Cove, W. G.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Barnes, A.
Crittall, V. G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North}


Batey, Joseph
Darbishire, C. W.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas


Birkett, W. N.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)


Bondfield, Margaret
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Gillett, George M.


Bonwick, A.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Gosling, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dickie, Captain J. P.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frame)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Dickson, T.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lunn, William
Shinwell, Emanuel


Greenall, T.
McCrae, Sir George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Simpson, J. Hope


Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Grundy, T. W.
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maden, H.
Snell, Harry


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
March, S.
Spero, Dr. G. E


Harbord, Arthur
Marley, James
Stamford, T. W.


Hardie, George D.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Harney, E. A.
Maxton, James
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
Middleton, G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Millar, J. D.
Sunlight, J.


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Mills, J. E.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Morel, E. D.
Tattersall, J. L.


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Hayes, John Henry
Morse, W. E.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Healy, Cahir
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Muir, John W.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Murray, Robert
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hillary, A, E.
Nichol, Robert
Tout, W. J.


Hirst, G. H.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hobhouse, A. L.
O'Grady, Captain James
Turner, Ben


Hodges, Frank
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Hogbin, Henry Cairne
Owen, Major G.
Vivian, H.


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Palmer, E. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hudson, J. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Parry, Thomas Henry
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon-Trent)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Perry, S. F.
Warne, G. H.


Jewson, Dorothea
Phillipps, Vivian
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)
Raynes, W. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, W. Russell
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Richards, R.
Wignall, James


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F.W. (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Robertson, T. A.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Keens, T.
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Willison, H.


Kenyon, Barnet
Romeril, H. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kirkwood, D.
Royce, William Stapleton
Windsor, Walter


Lansbury, George
Royle, C.
Wintringham, Margaret


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Wright, W.


Leach, W.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Lee, F.
Sexton, James



Linfield, F. C.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lowth, T.
Sherwood, George Henry
 Mr. Spoor and Mr. Kennedy.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Clarry, Reginald George
Hartington, Marquess of


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Clayton, G. C.
Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)


Becker, Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Cope, Major William
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Berry, Sir George
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)
Hogge, James Myles


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hood, Sir Joseph


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovll)
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brass, Captain W.
Deans, Richard Storry
Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dixon, Herbert
Hughes, Collingwood


Brittain, Sir Harry
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Huntingfield, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ferguson, H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Caine, Gordon Hall
FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Jephcott, A. R.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Cassels, J. D.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lane-Fox, George R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)




Lorlmer, H. D.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McLean, Major A.
Raine, W.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell (Croydon,S.)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Meller, R. J.
Remer, J. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Waddington, R.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wells, S. R.


Nesbitt, Robert C.
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds,Central)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pease, William Edwin
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pennefather, Sir John
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Penny, Frederick George
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)



Perring, William George
Steel, Samuel Strang
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Philipson, Mabel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major Sir


Pielou, D. P.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
 Harry Barnston.

Question put, accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes 233.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Penny, Frederick George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut -Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gilmour, Colonel Rt- Hon. Sir John
Perring, William George


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Philipson, Mabel


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pielou, D. P.


Becker, Harry
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ralne, W.


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Blundell, F. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brass, Captain W.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hood, Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Savery, S. S.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shepperson, E. W.


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Collingwood
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Steel, Samuel Strang


Cassels, J. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jephcott, A. R.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Chilcott, Sir Warden
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, J. Q.
Waddington, R.


Clayton, G. C.
Lane-Fox, George R.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Wells, S. R.


Cope, Major William
Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds,Central)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lorlmer, H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)
McLean, Major A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Davidson, Major-General Sir J, H.
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Deans, Richard Storry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Dixon, Herbert
Nesbitt, Robert C.



Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major Sir


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Pease, William Edwin
Harry Barnston.


Ferguson, H.
Pennefather, Sir John



NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Banton, G.
Bromfield, William


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barclay, R. Noton
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barnes, A.
Buckle, J.


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Batey, Joseph
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)


Alstead, R.
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Ammon, Charles George
Birkett, W. N.
Cape, Thomas


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bondfield, Margaret
Charleton, H. C.


Astor, Viscountess
Bonwick, A.
Church, Major A. G.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Climie, R.


Ayles, W. H.
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Cluse, W. S.


Baker, Walter
Broad, F. A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Compton, Joseph
Jewson, Dorothea
Robertson, T. A.


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)


Crittall, V. G.
Jones, C.Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Romeril, H. G.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Royle, C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leil (Camborne)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Dickson, T.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Sexton, James


Dodds, S. R.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Duckworth, John
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Sherwood, George Henry


Dukes, C.
Keens, T.
Shlnwell, Emanuel


Duncan, C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dunn, J. Freeman
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, J. Hope


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Lawson, John James
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Leach, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Egan, W. H.
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Linfield, F. C.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


England, Colonel A.
Lowth, T.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Falconer, J.
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
McCrae, Sir George
Starmer, Sir Charles


Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stephen, Campbell


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Mackinder, W.
Sunlight, J.


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sutton, J. E.


Gillett, George M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tattersall, J. L.


Gosling, Harry
Maden, H.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Marley, James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Greenall, T.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Thurtle, E.


Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis
Middleton, G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, T. W.
Millar, J. D.
Tout, W. J.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mills, J. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Turner, Ben


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Viant, S. P.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Vivian, H.


Harbord, Arthur
Morse, W. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hardie, George D.
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Harney, E. A.
Muir, John W.
Warne, G. H.


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Nichol, Robert
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
O'Grady, Captain James
Weir, L. M.


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Haycock, A. W.
Owen, Major G.
Wignall, James


Hayday, Arthur
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Healy, Cahir
Parry, Thomas Henry
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough E.)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Perry, S. F.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian
Willison, H.


Hillary, A. E.
Pilkington, R. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hobhouse, A. L.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Wintringham, Margaret


Hedges, Frank
Raynes, W. R.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Rea, W. Russell
Wright, W.


Hogge, James Myles
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Richards, R.



Hudson, J. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Kennedy.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I take it that the discussion on thee main question will now be resumed for the three minutes that remain. I have seen a little of what is known colloquially as obstruction, but I have never seen anything to equal what we have experienced this evening. Before the Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for

Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) was moved, only one private Member, an hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches, had any opportunity of discussing the main question, and we have now only three minutes in which to discuss it. I want to deal with a matter that has not been touched upon to-day, and that is the extraordinary policy that the Minister of Labour has continued in making a differentiation in the payments out of the fund to young men and young
women when unemployed. There may be some possible case made out for young men and women of 18 receiving different amounts of money, but I cannot see why you should make any difference between the young girl of 16 and the young boy of 16 in this respect. As a matter of fact, I think it is more dangerous to keep the young woman on short commons, with barely enough to live on, than it is to keep the young man short of money, and I am sure that this question has been brought home to my right hon. Friend, with his large experience of the industrial life of the country. I hope he will find time to reconsider this question, as I think it is scandalous that a Labour-Government should continue this policy.

Mr. SHAW rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. MACLEAN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. PRINGLE: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. When you called on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), it was on the express understanding that there would be an opportunity for a

general discussion, and because, owing to mismanagement, the Debate on the Amendment has been protracted, surely that is no reason why the Closure should now be applied. It was an express statement in reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean).

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). I pointed out that there had been a tendency to discuss the Amendment on the Main Question, and I thought it better to get rid of the Amendment and come back to the Main Question, That was what I said, but I gave no undertaking.

Lord HUGH CECIL: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Lord H. CECIL: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Hon. Members opposite do not appear to be aware of the rule that, until the Question has been put, Members should address the Chair standing. The point I want to put is that it is past a quarter past eight.

The CHAIRMAN: The Closure was moved before a quarter past eight, and was put to the Committee. It was the interruptions from this side that carried us past 8.15.

The Committee divided Ayes, 230; Noes, 128.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Cape, Thomas
Falconer, J.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Charleton, H. C.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.


Adamson, W, M. (Staff., Cannock)
Church, Major A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Alexander, A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Climie, R.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas


Alstead, R.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gillett, George M.


Ammon, Charles George
Compton, Joseph
Gosling, Harry


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cove, W. G.
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Ayles, W. H.
Crittall, V. G.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Baker, Walter
Darbishire, C. W.
Greenall, T.


Banton, G.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barclay, R. Noton
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Grundy, T. W.


Barnes, A.
Dickie, Captain J. P.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Batey, Joseph
Dickson, T.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Birkett, W. N.
Dodds, S. R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bondfield, Margaret
Duckworth, John
Hair, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Bonwick, A.
Dukes, C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Duncan, C.
Harbord, Arthur


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Dunn, J. Freeman
Hardie, George D.


Broad, F. A.
Dunnico, H.
Harris, Percy A.


Bromfield, William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Buckie, J.
Egan, W. H.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Haycock, A. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
England, Colonel A.
Hayday, Arthur


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Middleton, G.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Healy, Cahir
Millar, J. D.
Smith, T, (Pontefract)


Hemmerde, E. G.
Mills, J. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morel, E. D.
Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.


Hillary, A. E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Starmer, Sir Charles


Hobhouse, A. L.
Morse, W. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hodges, Frank
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Muir, John W.
Sunlight, J.


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Murray, Robert
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Hudson, J. H.
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Isaacs, G. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tattersall, J. L.


Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Nichol, Robert
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Jewson, Dorothea
O'Grady, Captain James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)
Owen, Major G.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palmer, E. T.
Thurtle, E.


Jones J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Parry, Thomas Henry
Tout, W. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Turner, Ben


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Phillipps, Vivian
Viant, S. P.


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Pilkington, R. R.
Vivian, H.


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Keens, T.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kennedy, T.
Raynes, W. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kenyon, Barnet
Rea, W. Russell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kirkwood, D.
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Lansbury, George
Richards, R.
Weir, L. M.


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Whiteley, W.


Lee, F.
Robertson, T. A.
Wignall, James


Linfield, F. C.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Lowth, T.
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lunn, William
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)


McCrae, Sir George
Royce, William Stapleton
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Royle, C.
Willison, H.


McEntee, V. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Wintringham, Margaret


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sexton, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Maden, H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wright, W.


Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Sherwood, George Henry
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


March, S.
Shinwell, Emanuel



Marley, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Simpson, J. Hope
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Warne.


Maxton, James
Sinclair, Ma|or Sir A. (Caithness)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Clayton, G. C.
Hood, Sir Joseph


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas.C.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Captain C. C, (Antrim, South)
Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northrn.)


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hughes, Collingwood


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Huntingfield, Lord


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Becker, Harry
Deans, Richard Storry
Jephcott, A. R.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Dixon, Herbert
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Berry, Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ferguson, H.
Lamb, J. Q.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton. W.)
FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Lane-Fox, George R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gates, Percy
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brass, Captain W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lorimer, H. D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burman, J. B.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Meller, R. J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Cassels, J. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pease, William Edwin


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hogge, James Myles
Penny, Frederick George


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)




Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Perring, William George
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Philipson, Mabel
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds,Central)


Pleiou, D. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pringle, W. M. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Raine, W
Steel, Samuel Strang
Wise, Sir Fredric


Rankin, James S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Remer, J. R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon,S.)



Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major Sir


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waddington, R.
Harry Barnston.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) as from the date prescribed by the Minister of Labour, under Sub-section (2) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923, as the date on which the reduced rates of contributions by employers and workmen are to come into force, of a contribution towards unemployment benefit and other payments to he made out of the Unemployment Fund at a rate not exceeding one-half of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of employed persons by themselves and their employers at the rates prescribed under the said Section;
(b) of such contributions in respect of men of the Auxiliary Air Force undergoing training as are now or may hereafter be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of men of the Air Force while undergoing training."

Resolution to be reported To morrow.

Orders of the Day — LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Major BARNETT: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I wish at the very outset to disclaim any hostility to the principle of the Bill. It is perfectly obvious that when the railways were grouped, as now, that the
standardisation of railway pensions was a necessary thing. It was necessary that the rates payable and the benefits obtainable in the different groups of railways should be standardised, and this particular Bill apparently standardises the rates and the pensions pretty well, or, at any rate, in a way acceptable to 90 per cent. of the present subscribing members. While, however, the standardisation of rates and pensions and benefits is a good thing, so also are adequate pensions for the old annuitants; and the case I shall endeavour to make is that "this ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone."
I would ask the House to carry back its mind four years. There was great distress amongst the old railway men owing to the increased cost of living. The Association of Superannuated Railway Staffs took part in the matter and had the support of 361 Members of the House of Commons. Members of all parties were agreed in supporting the claim of these old people. We had a meeting at the Caxton Hall We had meetings at Whitefield's; and, finally, I myself had the honour of moving the following Resolution in the House of Commons on 2nd March, 1920:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the statutory pensions of superannuated railway servants, retired before or during the Government control of the railways, should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1920; col. 356, Vol. 126.]
In proposing that Resolution to the House I admitted that it was a question as to where the responsibility rested—with the railway companies or with the State. I said:
I shall, I hope, he able to make out to the satisfaction of the House that this is a debt that has to be paid either by the State or by the railway companies, or by the two together, and the sooner the Minister of Transport and the railway companies put their heads together and decide exactly the proportion in which this necessary money shall be forthcoming, the better
it will be for the House of Commons and for the nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1920; col. 359, Vol. 126.]
The House of Commons debated this question for nearly three hours and without a Division affirmed the Resolution. Then came letters of congratulation from all ranks of the old people all over the country. I received pathetic letters from those who supposed that what the House of Commons had passed was law, and inquiring how long it would be before the increased pensions were going to accrue? Alas, for the futility of human hopes! Subsequently in the House of Commons Mr. Neal, who was then Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, expressed the greatest sympathy with the old men, but also stated the view that the railway companies were responsible. The Chairman of the Clearing House Committee the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) took the line in this House that it was the State's affair. The Debate that started in the House of Commons continued outside. It was the railway companies versus the State. The railway companies said the State ought to pay, as the State had had control of the railways for years, and the State said the railway companies ought to pay; but all the while this controversy was going forward the old men were dying. There was plenty of sympathy, and indeed that sympathy has been shown in a practical way by the working staffs of the railways as well as by the directors.
Very considerable subscriptions have been given to the fund by the working staffs, and this money has been supplemented by the railway companies. In the case of the particular railway company with which we are now dealing the very considerable sum of £18,000 has been found by the working staffs and £18,000 by the railway company, while a further sum found by the railway company for necessitous cases brought the total amount up to £48,000. I admit all that; I am glad to admit it; but I say here, and I am prepared to maintain, that these voluntary grants are neither certain nor are they adequate. First of all, I say they are not certain because they may be stopped at any time. In this connection I have a letter sent out by the secretary with all London and North Western Railway Auxiliary Fund payments:
The amount of the grant is governed by the funds at the disposal of the Committee, and the applications received, and
I am to remind you it is liable to variation or cessation at any time without notice.
There is not very much certainty there. To the contributors to the Auxiliary Fund the London and North Western Committee reported in 1922 and 1923, RS follows:
The scale upon which these allowances are made is not by any means adequate, and has to be limited according to the amount available. … The grants are still restricted in every case to those whose total income from all sources is less than £3 per week and who are without substantial capital resources, and the number of those recipients shows no decrease.
There are plenty of hard cases which prove that this allowance of about 8s. 9d. a, week is not adequate. Here is the case of one unfortunate annuitant.
I am sorry to inform you that Mr. H. died on 5th May, after a hard struggle to meet his difficulties with a pension of about £80 per annum. The poor fellow had to work up to a few weeks of his death, aged 72, and that is a sample of the plight of many of our railway annuitants; they do not retire from work, they do other work, and, perhaps, snore arduous work, and work until they collapse.
I maintain that the voluntary system is uncertain and inadequate. What are we asking the Company for? There was an Instruction on the Paper that pre-War pensions should be increased by 50 per cent., but it was taken off the Paper, and I have not put it down again because I know the House of Commons does not like Instructions, and does not like to pass the Second Reading of a Bill, and then send it to a Committee with a hard and fast Instruction to do a certain thing. No Instruction is necessary, for a Petition has been lodged to give a locus standi before the Committee to the critics of the Measure, We are simply asking the company for an assurance from their representatives in this House—(1) That the statutory pension of all annuitants who retired on pre-War scales of pensions and any addition thereto now paid by way of a supplementary or compassionate allowance from the Company or a voluntary Fund will be continued as a charge on the new Fund; (2) That in any case where the addition does not amount to 50 per cent. of the statutory pension it will be made up to 50 per cent, out of the new Fund; and (3) That these additions shall be secured by amendment of the Bill.
I hope we shall get that assurance. If we do not, it will be asked for during
the Committee stage, and if we do not get it then we shall claim the right to raise the matter again on the Third Reading of the Bill. Objection has been made on behalf of the Company that the 50 per cent. increase is calculated to give the biggest increase to the higher pensions. That is not a very generous criticism of the men who have devoted their time and money fighting the battle of these old men, but I am authorised to put that entirely out of the category of possible criticism of these proposals, and to say that the Association of Superannuated Railway Staffs is willing to agree to limit the amount which any annuitant may receive by way of addition to his statutory pension, and the limit suggested is an addition of £100 per annum. Consequently the high pensioners will not get a farthing out of this proposal.
The vast majority of those I am speaking for are men who have not got £100 pension, and three-fourths of them are receiving between £75 and £100 a year, and those are the old men I am pleading for to-night. The company say that they cannot pay this amount, and it will cost too much money, and their actuary informs them that our suggestion is going to cost them £70,000 a year for 15 years. I challenge those figures, and I think I can prove that they are absolute nonsense. I have in my hand the Midland Railway Superannuation Fund report for the year ended the 31st January last, which is very recent information, and although the old Midland Railway Company is only a part of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, it is an important part.
What are the statistics? On the 31st January last there were 1,137 annuitants on the books of the Midland Railway Company, and 217 of them were below the age of 65 and they had been retired on account of ill health at an average age of 47. Between the ages of 65 and 69 there were 482 men, and above the age of 69, that is 70 and over, there were 438. The aggregate of these three figures is 1,137, and I ask the House to pay close attention to that total because we are faced with the statement made in black and white on the authority of the actuary of the company that it is going to cost £70,000 a year for fifteen years to give the 50 per cent. increase we have asked for. I have
told the House that there are 438 annuitants of 70 years of age or over, and what does experience show us in regard to these men?
I have carefully analysed this report. and I find that of the men who have lived to the age of 70 years there is only one man in 11 lives to be 80, one man in 40 lives to be 85, and one man in 440 lives to be 90, What expectation of life is the actuary suggesting when he says that he wants £70,000 a year for fifteen years to make the company safe. It is quite absurd. No doubt these railway servants are selected lives, the picked veterans of the railway service; they are men of the highest character and sobriety who have done 40 years of honourable service for the Company, and they are men any insurance company would be very glad to have.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has not explained why the actuary statement is nonsense.

Major BARNETT: I have explained that there are 438 men in the list of 70 years of age in the Midland Railway only. The men I am speaking for to-night are men who were 65 years of age before they had pensions at all and before August, 1919. Those are the only men with whom I am concerned. I do not look at those between 65 and 69, because they have retired since August, 1919, and their pensions are based on the higher standard of wages now paid. I am taking the men who are now 70 years of age and over. There are 438 of them My hon. Friend asks how I know how long these men are going to live. I do not know, but I have the very finest actuarial test here. I see what are the ages of the men who are now actually on the Fund, and it is on the basis of those figures, and of those figures alone, that I say that, in the case of the Midland Railway, out of 440 men who reach the age of 70, only one in eleven lives to be 80, only one in 40 lives to be 85, and only one in 440 lives to be 90. I want to know where the £70,000 for 15 years comes in. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how you select your men—and these, as I have said, are the picked veterans of industry—
The days of our age are threescore years and ten; and though men be so strong that they come to fourscore years,
yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow, so soon passeth it away and we are gone.

Mr. HANNON: I apologise for again interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, but he makes a charge of nonsense against the actuarial report, which suggests that there must be a reserve of £70,000 for 15 years, and I respectfully suggest that he ought to produce some definite statement in support of that charge.

Major BARNETT: I am doing my best to provide my hon. Friend with the arguments. He will afterwards have an opportunity of replying to them. ft seems to me that, if I take the latest official report of this particular superannuation fund, which was issued only two months ago; if I take from that the number of annuitants who are 70 and over, and if I apply to them the experience of the previous annuitants, which shows the number of years that men under these conditions live, I am applying a very fair test. My hon. Friend remarks that that only relates to the Midland Railway. If he is in possession of figures relating to any other railway of the group, let him produce them at the proper time, and not now.

Mr. HANNON: I apologise.

Major BARNETT: I submit that my argument is perfectly fair. I have taken the number of annuitants on the books of the fund in January last, as far as regards the Midland Railway Company, and I think that that is a fair test. I believe that on the Midland Railway the conditions are as good as, if not better than, on any other railway. That is what I am told, but I only ask the House to believe that they are a fair average, and, if that be so, my argument holds good. It is for my Friend to disprove it with the aid of his friend the actuary, if he can. I have received a great deal of correspondence on this subject, and, before I sit down, want to say a few words with regard to that. I think it is about time that Members of the House of Commons, from their places in this House, protested against the machine-made agitation which is now directed against us on every possible occasion. I have myself received, in reference to this Bill, 14,214 communications up to midnight last night.
[Laughter.] Hon. Members who have not been exposed to this bombardment may laugh—

Mr. HEMMERDE: We had it on the McKenna Duties.

Major BARNETT: No doubt it is helping the Postmaster-General, who is getting a windfall out of it, but, seriously, it is nothing less than persecution that Members of the House of Commons should be bombarded by railway companies or any other companies. There are 40,000 subscribing members of this fund, many of whom have wives, and they write as well. By an organised agitation on the part of this railway company, every unfortunate Member of this House has been thus bombarded for weeks past. I say that it is childish nonsense. A thing is either false or true. If it is false, it does not become any less false by being said 15,000 times, and if it is true it remains true for all that damnable iteration. I have been carried back during the past fortnight to the days of my childhood and the monumental statement by the Bellman in "The Hunting of the Snark":
I have said it once; I have said it twice; what I say three times is true.
These people think that when a thing has been said some 14,000 or 15,000 times it will produce an effect upon one's mind, but the only effect that it produces on my mind—perhaps an obstinate mind—is one of repugnance. It may be that I have inherited a little of the dour determination of my Ulster forbears, who, once they had made up their minds that a certain course was right, were deflected not a hairsbreadth by all the shouting and clamour in the world. It is not only the London Midland Railway that has resorted to these tactics. Everyone now who has a cause that he wants maintained on the Floor of the House gets the printing press and the Roneo machine to work to deluge hon. Members with correspondence. I see sympathetic faces on the other side of the House. If a great company like the Midland would devote its undoubted powers of organisation to reducing railway rates and making passenger fares something like what they were before the War, they would be making a much better use of those powers than in persecuting Members of Parliament, who, after all, are only trying to do their duty.
This is not a vote-catching campaign. I do not think that one of these old men lives in my constituency. They could not live in St. Pancras on the miserable pittance they are getting. There are a certain number of subscribing members of the railway company's staff in St. Pancras, and from them I have had every sympathy and assistance. Many of them have written to me to ask for explanations, and I think that mostly they have been satisfied. I do, however, protest. most strongly at our having floods of correspondence from Nuneaton, Rugby, Inverness, or Glasgow hurled at our devoted heads by people who do not, know us, who do not knew our connection with this business, and who are simply doing what they are told to do by a voice at Derby or Euston, or somewhere else. I am not going to read the whole of the 14,000 letters I have received; I will only read three. One of these is from a gentleman at Cheltenham, who thinks that these old pensioners are doing very well. He says they are getting benefits
beyond the dreams of avarice.
Eight shillings and fourpence a week! I hope that, when that gentleman comes to the evening of his days, if he has a pension of £80 a year, and gets 8s. 4d. a week added to it, he will think he is rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Another, from Winslow, Bucks, says:
We … have done all that is necessary for the old super-annuitants. The cost of living is a Government question, not ours or the railway companies,
The only other one that I will read is from a gentleman at Crewe, who also shall be nameless, and who writes in red ink across the official communication:
I entirely disagree with this inspired and broadcasted document, and congratulate you on the stand you are taking.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) and I are the real villains of the piece. At one time it was in my thoughts to bring the letters I had received and show them to the House, but my secretary informed me that it would be necessary to hire two motor lorries. I have been very sorry for the postman who has had to deliver letters at my office every day this week.
One morning I saw him coming in heavily laden with three sacks, which it took my secretary three hours to open. But though I cannot bring them here I have had them counted and I find I can beat my hon. and gallant Friend. I have received 17,400 letters. I think the only person who can be delighted with this position is the Postmaster-General, and, as his revenue has been so largely increased, I hope he will be able to revise his Budget and introduce penny postage. The postage alone on the letters I have received amounts to over £100, and if every Member of the House has received a postbag to an equal extent the cost of this broadcasting will have reached £00,000. A curious fact about these letters is that most of them are in the same handwriting, or shall I say in the same Roneo typewriting. Most of them also came, strange to say, in the railway company's envelopes. Apparently it is the railway company's stationery. I have made some investigations on this subject and I have had placed in my hands a letter signed by Mr. Walkden, the general secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association. I should like to enter a protest against the contents of the letter. Not one word is stated in it as the reasons which operate in the minds of my hon. and gallant Friend and myself. All he says is that we are vindictive people who are trying to kill the Bill. He says:
Then I must ask every branch secretary to call upon his chairman and fellow officers and committee men immediately to assist in getting the rank and file of the membership to send individual letters on private paper from their homes to the Members of Parliament who represent their respective residential districts. It does not matter whether the Member is employed by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway or not. He will write as one of the Member of Parliament's constituents. The letters should be brief and clear, and should not all be drafted in the same words, but in order to assist, I enclose two specimen drafts, which I trust will prove helpful. The first is intended to be used by the branch secretaries writing on behalf of the whole of their membership and the second to be used by the individual members. The latter communications are very necessary. It will have a very great effect if large numbers of them ire sent. I am sure you and your colleagues will do your utmost to assist to get this done without delay. If any questions are raised in the replies received from Members of Parliament, they should be referred to our Parliamentary representative, Mr. H. G. Romeril, M.P. for South-East St. Pancras, for the information desired. It is not necessary or desirable that any branches
or individual members should enter into controversy with any Members of Parliament who appear to be unfavourable to the Bill. They should merely be requested to withdraw their opposition and give wholehearted support to this Measure.
9.0 P.M.
I do not know who paid for this postage and I do not very much care, but in any case if this vast sum which has been spent on postage, which must at least have amounted to £10,000, had been addressed to the object of giving the poor old men who are suffering so much, it would have been greatly to their advantage and would have secured the rapid passage of the Bill.
We are not on any vote-catching expedition. I do not suppose there are more than 20 of these old men in the whole of my constituency, and the sole object we have in mind is to have a debate on the subject and to secure that the point of view of these old men is put forward. There is not a single man in the House who is not pledged up to the hilt in their cause. If we look at the pledges given at the last General Election, every man in the House is pledged to see that the pre-War pensioners, whether soldiers, sailors, policemen or teachers, are given an increase, and in the action we are taking and the views we are stating we are only putting forward what we are all pledged to try to secure. It is not my intention to indulge either in sob-stuff or in harrowing details of the condition which has arisen, but I should like to give a few details of cases which have come to my notice where real hardship has been caused. It has often been said that no case of hardships is refused voluntary assistance, but if we come to examine the details we find that is not the case. Five cases have been brought to my notice. For the purpose of the Debate, I will give them index numbers. A is aged 74, has had 44 years of service as cashier and receives superannuation of £67 18s. He has been refused help from the voluntary fund because he has a £300 investment bringing in £12 per annum. The result is that his wife and daughter have to maintain him. The total income is £79 18s., or £1 11s, a week. The rent and fuel average 17s. 6d, a week, leaving 13s. 6d. for food, clothing, etc., for three people. B is aged 78, has been 43 years in the service, was a stationmaster and receives as superannuation £94. He gets no help whatever
from the voluntary fund, as he does a little selling on commission, and is refused quarter-fare tickets when travelling on this duty. He has a wife and invalid daughter to maintain. C has been 45 years in the service, a stationmaster, receiving £82 7s. superannuation. He is refused help, as he has investments bringing in a varying income of £30 to £40 per annum. That shows that it is very necessary that this House should do something for these poor old men.

Mr. ROMERIL: Will the hon. Member tell us which company these men were on?

Mr. REMER: I think it is the London and North Western Railway. These people who retire on pension and find their means reduced, not through any fault of their own, but entirely through the high cost of living due to the War, are entitled to some consideration from the railway company. It has been said very often that this only applies to people who are well able to look after themselves. One man met me to-day and told me that a great many of these people who retire receive a pension of £2,000 a year and upwards. I am not pleading on behalf of those people. I am not pleading the cause of people who are able to look after themselves, but I am pleading for those who are not able to look after themselves. Here is a letter from one of my constituents:
My attention has been drawn to your letter of the 13th inst. in the "Cheshire Daily Echo," and I take the opportunity of thanking you on behalf of the poor old railway pensioners. My father, who is now 74 years of age, is one of the many sufferers. He was one who helped to found the superannuation fund, and always took great interest in it, and worked long and faithfully for the railway company until his retirement in 1915. Since that time, of course, he has been pauperised by a paltry pension on which the family could not have lived in decency without receiving outside help.
To show the difficulty in which these people are placed, I will quote a letter from a man who asks me not to mention his name or the meeting to which he refers. He says:
I thank you for your letter of the 16th inst. It is very gratifying to hear of one who will not allow votes to interfere with the principles of common justice. Make any use of my letter you like, as long as my name is not mentioned. Also I must ask you not to mention the name of Mr. X., the speaker at last Saturday's meeting, because I tackled him publicly then, so if my name were
divulged or suspicion thrown on me it would mean the 'sack.' Late as it now is to obtain any justice for these old age pensioners, fast dwindling in numbers, scattered and lacking the aid of powerful trades unions to fight for them, it would indeed be a wonderful thing, and so I rather 'ha ma doots.' However, please allow me once again to thank you for the just and humane stand you have taken on their behalf.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) informs me, in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Mr. Romeril), that these are old London and North Western Railway men.
I would like to refer to the railway company itself. It is a monstrous thing that the railway company should have made attempts to frighten their employés. They have been told that if this Bill does not get a Second Reading to-day the whole Bill may be dropped. They should abstain from giving veiled hints to these old men that if they proceed with their opposition to this Bill they will lose even the voluntary payments which have been made on their behalf. Here is a letter which has come from the London, Midland and Scottish Railway at Derby, which is nothing more or less than a threat to these old men:
It can hardly be expected that the subscriptions towards the voluntary fund will be maintained if those, who are contributing to the support of this fund, have reason to think that the Bill is being opposed by the superannuitants already receiving assistance. This consequence would, obviously, result in the grant you are now receiving being reduced, or, even, discontinued altogether. You may, therefore, think it advisable immediately to write to the Member of Parliament for your Division, urging him to give every facility and support for the passing of this important Measure. In case you do not know his private address, post your request to him at the House of Commons without a moment's delay.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: Who signs that letter?

Mr. REMER: It is signed by F. Brooker.

Sir H. NIELD: Who is he?

Mr. REMER: It is from the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Telegraph Department, Derby.

Mr. HANNON: What has the railway company to do with that? I must protest
against quotations from a letter written by a private individual, for which the railway company have no responsibility whatever.

Mr. REMER: I will read a letter written on behalf of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company.

Mr. RAYNES: Is the hon. Member aware that Mr. Brooker is secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association, and, as the trade union secretary, that letter was sent to his members?

Mr. REMER: I have another letter from the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, General Superintendent's Department, Derby:
I think it only right to point out that if this Motion is carried it would seriously raise the question as to whether this Bill should be proceeded with.
I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in disputing the figures and also the statement that this will cost something like £70,000. I do not see how it can cost anything like that amount. In the whole country there are only 1,500 of these old men. From an actuarial estimate which has been made by a friend of mine, I am assured that he cannot see how the cost will exceed £20,000. Whether the figure be £20,000 or £70,000, it will dwindle year by year, and in ten years it will have reached practically nothing. When we refer to the position which is put forward by the Railway Clerks' Association, I would point out that our proposal is in exact accordance with what the Railway Clerks' Association themselves advocated in the circular which they lasted to Members of Parliament. They say:
In consequence of the rise in the cost of living due to the War, the allowances of the annuitants who have retired from the railway service, provided for by the rules of the superannuation funds, have decreased in real value, and representations were made to the company on the subject by my association.
That circular shows that the association have been trying to do exactly the same thing that we are trying to do this evening.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: It is oily fair that the hon. Member should proceed with the passage.

Mr. REMER: I will read on:
Although it has not been possible to induce the companies to accept any statutory
obligation to supplement these allowances, the railway staffs at the suggestion of my Association have contributed,
and so on; I would refer also to a letter which has been sent to Members of Parliament and signed by the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary and three other Members of Parliament:
We fully sympathise with the pre-War pensioners in their demand and consider that the railway companies should do something to improve their present inadequate pension. To delay this Bill, however, would not help to forward their case as such action would benefit rather than injure the railway company.
The point I am trying to make, is that here we have threats by the railway company that these pensions are going to he taken away from the old men. They have been told that they will disappear. Is that not all the more reason why the temporary thing should become permanent? Is it not all the more vital that these annuitants should secure better treatment than they have had in the past? I will point out that the letter itself shows clearly that when any payments are made to these old men they are to be regarded as being for the one year only and liable to be dropped or reduced at a moment's notice. I feel that it is of vital importance, not only to the railway company and the present railway clerks but to these old men, that this superannuation allowance should be made permanent.
When we come to examine the superannuation fund of the railway companies; we find that, so far from being bankrupt, they have risen from £6,000,000 altogether in 1913 to £18,000,000 in 1923. Furthermore, one of the railway companies, which forms an important branch of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway—the North Staffordshire Railway—have already given this 50 per cent. The Northern Railway, which is a part of the London and North Eastern Railway combine, has also given the amount, and it is only these sections, the other sections of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway combine, which are standing out. The railway companies received £60,000,000 from the Government when Sir Eric Geddes was Minister of Transport. That was given to them to pay all claims due by them arising out of the War. I contend that this is a claim which has arisen out of the War, and that
the railway companies should meet it fairly. These old men have been buffeted about between the Ministry of Transport and the railway companies. They have not been given a square deal. Whatever the outcome of this be, common justice demands that these old men who have served the railway companies very well, and who are now in a position of great suffering, should receive from them what they regard as their due.

Mr. ROMERIL: I claim the indulgence which is always given generously by the House to Members who are unfortunate enough to be making maiden speeches. My task is perhaps easier than is normally the case on such occasions, inasmuch as this is not a party question, and I feel that I shall have the sympathy of Members in all parts of the House. I am not finding fault with the sympathy which has been expressed with the existing pensioners. I note with pleasure that my colleague the hon. Member for South West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) and his hon. Friends are so much in sympathy with the existing pensioners. I regret that that sympathy was not expressed in a Vote in this House last year when an attempt was made to provide assistance for all aged workers in connection with the removal of the thrift disqualification to the Old Age Pension. It is a matter of regret that these men who are now so sympathetic with the railway pensioners voted then against the removal of the thrift disqualification, but I am glad that they have repented, and I hope that their sympathy will be translated into votes on a larger issue when the occasion arises. It is suggested that their sympathy is to gild the pill, but I do not think that they will be able to gild the pill. I am here to protest against the suggestion which has been made in connection with a circular that was only partly read. The suggestion was made that there were insulting implications in this circular with reference to the opposition that has emerged in connection with this Rill, and the reading of the circular began lower down. With your permission, Sir, I will read the opening of the circular, and I defy anybody to discover any suggestion such as has been described.
I regret to have to inform you that this Bill is meeting with a great deal of opposition in Parliament, and is blocked by several Members of Parliament every
time it is put down for Second Reading. It is likely to be the subject of debate before a vote can be taken on the question of whether it shall go forward for its Third Reading. You know that the Second Reading Debate and the subsequent vote will decide the fate of the Bill, and if it is defeated the consequences will be very serious, not only for the salaried staff of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway but for their colleagues employed on all other railways where arrangements similar to those set forth in the Bill are desired.
That is the opening of the circular. The rest has been read. I fail to see that there is anything in that circular which can properly be described in the way in which it has been described this evening. Then it is argued that this opposition, this "machine-made agitation," has come from the railway companies. I have knowledge which spreads over a great many years of the folks who have been sending communications to Members of Parliament, and from my knowledge the suggestion that they are likely to do anything of the kind in response to pressure from the railway companies is entirely absurd. The fact is that this Bill is mainly in the interests of the working staff of the railway, and that, in spite of anything that has been said since this matter has been discussed between Members of Parliament and their constituents, in the early part of the process of hindering the passage of this Bill there has already appeared several times upon the Order Paper very definite indications of an intention to defeat this Bill, and in those circumstances it was only right that all these men throughout the country whose interests are vitally concerned in this Bill should be aware of what was going on, and should take reasonable steps to indicate their position. Suggestions have been made about coercion and one thing and another. I saw a Press report about one right hon. Gentleman whose back was to become steel against this attempt to intimidate. I submit there has been nothing in connection with the movement in support of this Bill that could properly he described as intimidation. On the contrary there has been a. desire merely to indicate a point of view in connection with this matter. Hon. Members who are genuine in their desire to serve the interests of these aged pensioners must surely admit the right of the staff to indicate their
point of view. The case is either false or true. That is not affected in any way by the number of communications. Those of us who are here know full well how many communications come, and the great variety and multitude of the subjects brought under our notice, and I think it will be admitted that where there is a widespread feeling in support of a Measure that it is advisable for the individuals concerned to make their feelings known to their own members.
I submit that the men were justified in feeling apprehensive. While it has been stated that all these letters were in die same writing, I do not think it has been the general experience that they were all in the same writing or that they have all come from people who were pressed to do this thing. As a matter of fact some Members have not merely received letters, but have been invited to meet their constituents. That has happened with the most excellent results. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) met his constituents, and as a result of having thrashed the matter out with them he came to the conclusion that he could best help both parties by withdrawing his opposition to this Bill. I, for one, accept his position as being entirely proper and genuine, and I believe these old men themselves will realise that that is so. I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There has not been a great deal that needs to be met in the way of argument. The details of the case have been fairly well submitted to Members of the House, and all that we have to-night is some suggestion that the actuaries do not know their business and that certain hon. Members of this House are able to give much more favourable estimates. I ask the House to accept the statement that has been made by the company that they cannot do this thing. I regret that they have made it but, on the other hand, I ask the House not to jeopardise the carrying into law of this Bill, because the effect of that would be extremely serious and disadvantageous to many deserving men in the country. I wish to say, on behalf of the Railway Clerks' Association, that everything possible on our part to maintain these voluntary funds will be done, that we will continue to do what we have always done, that is, to press on the company their
duty towards those old men. We are prepared to do that all the time, and we ask the House to give us this Bill.

Mr. HANNON: In the first place, may I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman opposite on the admirable speech he has delivered? I think one of the most helpful features of debate in this House is that hon. Members contribute their share on the subjects which they know best, and nobody, indeed, is better qualified to speak on the subject before the House than the hon. Member who has just sat down. In asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, L would like to refer to some of the statements made by my hon. and gallant Friend for South West St. Pancras (Major Barnett). My hon. and gallant Friend is one of the most sincere and earnest Members of this House, and every subject he touches he touches with that earnestness of purpose which we, who are his colleagues, have always recognised in him. In the statements he made this evening he has allowed his zeal to carry him a little too far, and I think he will probably experience regret when he reads his speech in cold type in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning. My hon. and gallant Friend referred especially to the Resolution of this House passed in 1920, at a time when the whole railway administration of this country was under the control of an official body known as the Railway Committee. There was a Resolution passed at that time that these pensioners should receive the consideration of this House, and the House expressed its approval of that excellent intention. But when the House adopted that Resolution it did not determine who was to be responsible for the expenditure involved in giving these pre-War pensioners the increases which were contemplated. In point of fact at that time the railways, controlled as they wore, were perfectly willing to give effect at once to the Resolution of this House if the expenditure involved became part of the working expenses of the railways, but they were not prepared to make that bargain an additional charge on their shareholders, as my hon. and gallant. Friend won! d seem to think they should have done.

Mr. REMER: All the superannuation under this Bill wilt become a charge on the railways.

Mr. HANNON: I am referring to the substance of the Resolution passed by this House in 1920. That is an altogether different consideration from the substance of the Bill we are discussing this evening. If the Government at the time were prepared to take the responsibility for discharging this obligation, the railway companies would have been delighted to have accepted the Resolution in the letter and the spirit, but it was another proposition altogether to throw the burden of this charge on the unhappy shareholders, who, during the War, were placed in the most disadvantageous position in regard to their property, which was under the control of the State.

Major BARNETT: A private Member's Motion could not impose this obligation on the companies.

Mr. HANNON: What I said was that the Government of the day gave effect to the private Member's Resolution. Reference has been made to the £60,000,000 granted to the railways at the close of the War, and it has been suggested that it was in discharge of all obligations, including the improvement of the pensions of pre-War pensioners. But that £60,000,000 was voted for the railways so as to enable them to recondition their whole system, after the long war period during which all their machinery had been placed at the service of the State, and there was no stipulation that any part of this sum was to ho appropriated in such a way. I am exceedingly sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend suggested that the actuarial statement prepared is rot absolutely correct. I ventured apologetically to interrupt him, and to ask him if he could produce to the House any figures which would substantiate his contention, if I may respectfully say so. He spoke a little vaguely about certain poor old pensioners who would disappear in the process of time, and he put forward a certain sentimental suggestion that in the course of years the chargev would greatly diminish. But that is not the way to substantiate a charge agains the good faith of the actuary who prepared the statement.
It has been said during the course of the Debate that the Railway Clerks' Association has taken a very prominent part in the promotion of this Bill. Why should they not? It is their Bill. The
Railway Clerks' Association is a body which is intimately concerned in the operation of the Bill. There are nearly 40,000 clerks employed on the London, Midland and Scottish system, and they are perfectly entitled to use every honourable means at their disposal to convince hon. Members of this House of the righteousness of their desires. We in this House are well aware of the highways and byways of politics. We are accustomed to the methods by which letters are addressed to Members of Parliament, and it does not come very well from any hon. Member to find fault with such organised methods. Indeed, if I may make a confession, on one or two occasions when I was outside this House, I did not hesitate for a moment to suggest the use of the same gentlemanly and perfectly polite methods.
I come down to the Bill itself. According to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, the Bill is really framed to give effect to the expressed intention of Parliament when the Railway Act of 1921 was passed in this House. At that time the House took notice of the fact that in this new group of railways there were a whole series of superannuation schemes, and it was naturally desired that these schemes should be co-ordinated with uniform administration, contribution and benefit. This Bill simply seeks to put into practical operation what Parliament intended when it passed the Railway Act, 1921. In Clause 3 of that Act, it was laid down that the management of the superannuation funds devised by the different railway systems for the benefit of their employés, should remain unaltered until further provision was made by Parliament. We are to-night nicking that further provision, the desirability of which was expressed in Clause 3 of the Act of 1921.
According to my hon. and gallant Friend, on his side of the House they do not desire this Bill without making such modifications in it as would confer a 50 per cent. benefit on the pre-War pensioners on the London, Midland and Scottish system. Has any other body or corporation in this country been asked by Parliament since the close of the War to confer a similar privilege upon its pre-War pensioners? Not one. Parliament gave mature and careful thought to the
Pensioners' Act., 1920, when it was going through this House, and it then provided that in the case of civil servants the pension of the married man should be brought up to £200 a year and of the single man to £150 a year, but in every case the private means of the pensioner were to be taken into account. Now they want to add 50 per cent. of the pre-War pension without any consideration of the provisions of the Pensioners' Act, 1920. Are these funds to be continued with their great variety of administration? We have the Lancashire and Yorkshire doing one thing, the London and North Western doing another, the Midland another, the North Staffordshire another, and the Glasgow, South Western and Caledonian still another. The continuance of this variety of administration will necessarily cause great discontent among the railway servants who will be receiving different terms under similar circumstances.
Let me put it to the House, with all respect, that very few corporations in this country have had such continual regard for a long period of time for the welfare of their servants, both employés and pensioners, as the old London and North Western, which is the principal component part of this group. I say that consideration given to pre-War pensioners ought to commend itself to every hon. Member of this House. May I quote a single example to show the variety of treatment which will result in the event of Parliament failing to pass this Bill, and continuing the present system of superannuation on the different sections? Take the case of a man who has had a salary of £240 a year with 41 years' service. Under the London and North Western and the Lancashire and Yorkshire system he would receive £144 a year. Under the Midland, Caledonian and Glasgow and South Western he would receive £120. On the North Staffordshire he would get £153, and under this new scheme he would get £154. I think it impossible to administer any system of railway superannuation under one corporate organisation in that way without difficulties arising and without constant dissatisfaction and worry in maintaining anything like harmony among the great body of railway servants who have contributed to the pension funds on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
Faced with that difficulty, the London, Midland and Scottish Company took the constitutional course of appealing to representatives of the various funds to consult with the company as to the best means of overcoming the difficulty, and they called together the 23 contributors' committeemen. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, like the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Mr. Romeril) will be familiar with what I mean when I speak of the contributors' committeemen meeting the company with three representatives of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. They had several meetings, extending over a period of 18 months, and they had schemes submitted to them and examined them in detail. They produced schemes of their own, and finally, after mature consultation, they produced a scheme which is substantially the scheme embodied in this Bill. Who is more competent to decide what is best in the interest of the contributors to this fund than the people themselves in their organised capacity, in consultation with the company which is contributing a very substantial part of the funds? Reference has been made to the pressure or intimidation which has been practised upon these poor, innocent, lonely, wandering railway clerks, who are obliged to sign papers and to declare themselves in favour of this Bill.

Major BARNETT: Who has said so?

Mr. HANNON: It was said more than once that there was a good deal of pressure being exercised on individual clerks to show their approval of this pleasure in order to organise a. public movement in favour of the Bill. If anyone suggests to this House that the Railway Clerks' Association, which is one of the most vigorous and intelligent trade union organisations, is to be intimidated or pressed into any particular course of action by the railway companies, he is making a profound mistake. I would be sorry to try to influence them in any particular policy unless that policy was in the best interests of the association. There is the question of the old annuitants who asked for this increase. We have every sympathy with thrill. Five, six or seven times during the last couple of years, since this agitation began on their behalf, I have had interviews and correspondence with them with a view to obtaining for them the best concessions
possible. But what are they asking for? Not merely for a pension increase in accordance with the new scheme, but for pensions which would exceed the provisions of the new scheme for new people. Many of the pre-War pensioners are receiving pensions higher than those they would receive under the new scheme, and in particular the smaller people, whose cases have been so carefully considered by the railway company, are receiving substantially more than they would receive if contributing on the old basis on the principle of the new fund. To show that the railway constituent companies of the London, Midland and Scottish system have not been so indifferent to the welfare of these old people as has been suggested, I will quote a few examples. The Midland and Caledonian bring their old age pensioners' pensions up to £100 a year. They make additions to income over £100 and they give slight additions to incomes up to £150. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway guarantee incomes up to £78 a year. The London and North Western guarantee incomes up to £89, give assistance up to £120, and slight additions up to £125. The company and its salaried staff have made a special effort in order to meet the case of these old people. The salaried staff of the company contributes the substantial sum of £18,000 a year voluntarily in order to help necessitous cases. The company also provides £30,000 a year. That makes the total £48,000 a year. No case worth twopence-halfpenny has been made out against the Bill, and on the face of the facts I hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, because I cannot see what useful purpose, could be served by not doing so. Even those who are so anxious about the old men who are left out will not help their cause one bit by hindering the Bill. Moreover, this is an agreed Bill—agreed between those whom it is to affect, namely, the companies and those who work for them. They are satisfied with this Bill and they ask that it should be passed. I would go further and say that they would be very glad if it could apply as it is to the other railway undertakings, for it is the best of its kind, and they are hoping to have it passed as an example to others. There
can be no good result from delay, but there is the danger that if the Bill does not pass there will be chaos and unevenness continuing for another year. The old folks, with whom we are all in sympathy, we should like to help if we could, but the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill will not deprive them of the opportunity of putting their case forward in Committee.

Captain BOWYER: I would like to explain why it is that, after having been one of those who took a leading part in seeking to amend this Bill, I have now withdrawn all opposition to it, and, indeed, support it whole-heartedly. On the 9th May I had my name down on the Order Paper to a Motion for the rejection of the Bill in the ordinary formula, and also had my name down to move that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to make provision in the Bill that all superannuation allowances and payments out of the existing funds, based upon pre-War scales, should, as from 1st January, 1923, be increased by an additional supplementary allowance of not less than 50 per cent., except in the case of persons superannuated in the service of the North Staffordshire Railway Company. In putting down those Motions I had one object alone. It was never my object to delay or jeopardise the passage of the Bill. I cannot imagine any Member in any part of the House trying to imperil a Bill which is the result of an agreement between those who are to benefit under the Bill and those who are to administer it. My object was to see if we could possibly help the 1,300 or 1,500 old railway annuitants for whom I, in common with hon. Members of all parties, have been striving for the last five years. I need not labour the point that many of these annuitants are to-day suffering badly from the low rate of their pensions. I know of the voluntary effort which is being made to help them, and I hope the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras will allow us all to help in trying to increase the voluntary efforts on their behalf. I do resent in this matter the attitude of the railway companies, because in spite of the fact that a fortnight ago I had removed my name from every Amendment, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway sent out a letter dated 20th May stating that the proposed instruction to
the Committee which I read out just now was still on the Order Paper in my name. I am glad to have this opportunity of stating on the Floor of the House that this was not so. I wish to make it clear that from the moment I learned that this instruction might imperil the Bill, I took my name off. I want to see the Bill benefit those who are going to benefit by it, and I want to see it become law as soon as possible.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite willing to accede to what is the evident desire of the House, namely, that the Bill should be given a Second Reading without further discussion. I feel that the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill will also accede to that desire. They are both courageous, but they are also wise and generous, and it would be a wise and generous action on their part if they now withdrew their objection to the Bill. I think they have found, in the course of the discussion, that the aged annuitants, for whom we are concerned, have every safeguard under this Bill. They have for the first time guaranteed to them every single penny to which they have become entitled by service. There is also this point—that they have still the opportunity of going before the Committee upstairs and stating their case. I appeal on behalf of a great many railway men in that historic section of the new combine, namely, the Highland Railway, to my two hon. Friends to withdraw their objection and allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BETTERTON: I personally hope very much that the Bill will pass into law, and that my hon. Friends will withdraw their Motion for its rejection. Many of us who are now in this House took part in the discussions on the Railway Bill four years ago, and those of my hon. Friends who were present will recall that the question of superannuation was one of those questions which were so to speak reserved from the operation of that Measure for future consideration. Now negotiations have taken place between those who are interested and the railway company, with the result that an agreed Bill comes before the House, and I think it is the. general wish that it should be passed into law as early as possible. Having said so much, I should like to say something upon the position of this House itself.
Reference has been made to a Resolution which was passed unanimously by this House in March, 1920. The Resolution was in the following terms:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the statutory pension of superannuated railway servants retired before or during the Government control of the railways should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2 March, 1920; col. 356, Vol. 196.]
That Resolution was supported by no one in more conclusive language than by an hon. Friend of mine who was then a Member of this House and a director of the Midland Railway Company, I refer to Major Hills. No one in this House stood higher in the esteem of all parties than Major Hills, and during the subsequent deliberations on the Railway Bill in Committee he was the leader of the Members who spoke for the railway interest. This is what he said:
These annuitants were allowed to retire on the certainty of a certain income and on the figures prevailing in those days the income on which they could retire looked quite sufficient for the rest of their lives. … The War has changed all that, and the same income is not now sufficient. Therefore you have to bring them up to the post-War level.
Major Hills no doubt was expressing the view of the Board of which he was a member, and that view was shared by other railway directors. Let the House consider what the Railway Act did. It decontrolled the railways and allowed them to pass back into the hands of the companies. It secured a standard revenue to the companies, it enabled the railway companies to increase their charges and, further, as a result of the negotiations consequent upon the Measure some £60,000,000 was paid by the State into the coffers of the railway companies. Some of us voted for that Bill and some of my hon. Friends voted against it, but I am perfectly certain there is hardly a Member who voted for the Bill at that time who would have done so, unless he thought the obligation imposed by the Resolution of the year previously was to be carried into effect in letter and in spirit by the railway companies. That, whatever may be said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), has not been done. I agree that something has been done. He has told us that £18,000 has been subscribed by the present staff per year. All
credit to them, and I think it is a very generous contribution. Then 230,000 has been subscribed by the railway company. That also is a generous contribution, but it is not what this Resolution said, which was, that the annuities of these people should be increased to an amount equal to the cost of living, and what we complain of is that the railway company have not done what this House said, in express terms, that they ought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley said the question arose as to whether this could be charged against the revenues of the railway company, and apparently his argument is that so long as somebody else, namely, the State, pays the bill, the railways will accept it, but if you ask the company themselves to pay, they will have nothing to do with it.
The point that I particularly want to make is that this House is perfectly helpless in this matter. This House has to accept—and it may just as well face it—the humiliation of realising that the Resolution which it passed in March, 1920, was a mere formula upon which it cannot insist. It cannot insist upon it, because the railway company have said, in terms, that if this House endeavours to insist upon its own Resolution, they will withdraw the Bill. The secretary of this great company told the representative of the super-annuitants, in terms, "If you insist on this, we will withdraw the Bill," and so this House is in the dilemma of having to face the humiliation of seeing its own Resolution flouted by the railway company or of inflicting a grave injustice on those who would benefit by this Bill.

Mr. HANNON: The House did not fix the financial responsibility for the result of its own Resolution when it passed it.

Mr. BETTERTON: That is so, and that means that the railway company, so long as somebody else foots the bill, agree to it, but when they have to pay the bill, they will have nothing to do with it. That is a perfectly fair answer to the argument of my hon. Friend, and I say again that this House has no alternative in the matter. It has to pass this Bill for two reasons, first, because it is a good Bill, and everybody wants it passed, and secondly, if it attempts, so we have been told, to insert any Amendment in this Bill which will carry out its own Resolution, the Bill will be withdrawn, and those who will suffer will be those
who would otherwise benefit under the Bill. In these circumstances, while regretting it, I have no hesitation whatever in asking this House to support the Second Reading of the Bill, because, in fact, there is no other alternative than to submit, as I say, to the humiliation of seeing its own Resolution flouted.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. GOSLING rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Orders of the Day — WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) (No. 2) BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Validity Of certain War charges and levies.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LAMB:

In page 2, line 37, after the word "milk," to insert the words
which shall, so far as such charges relate to charges in respect of licences to purchase milk in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and Somerset, be applied proportionately in payment to the various persons in those counties who sold milk to such licensees by way of increase in the price of the milk sold over and above the maximum price fixed by the Food Controller by the (Summer Prices) Order, 1919, for milk in the said counties.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is out of order, as, if carried, it would impose a charge on the taxpayer.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, after the word "proceedings," to insert the words
(not being proceedings the institution of which was barred by the Indemnity Act, 1920, or any other Act).
The Amendment relates merely to costs. I gave an undertaking on a previous stage of the Bill that the Crown would indemnify the costs of those people, as I understood it, whose claims were quashed
by the Bill. The Amendment as already inserted in the Bill carried it out, but it was pointed out that possibly it was not in the most generous terms, and my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General undertook on the Report stage to see whether it could not be put in terms more generous. There is one question with regard to the date up to which costs should be paid. Our original proposal was that costs should be paid up to the date of the 1st September, 1922, that being the date given in the Indemnity Act, but in order to satisfy all possible grievances, it is proposed to pay costs with regard to suits that were instituted before 7th April, 1924, that is to say, last month. That is the date on which this House in Committee adopted the Money Resolution authorising the Bill, and I venture to think that that is a date which is very generous. Any suits which were instituted after. the date of that Money Resolution must have been instituted with full knowledge, not merely that the House would carry out the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) a long time ago—in 1922, I think—but that at any rate the House had already actually adopted, by passing a Money Resolution, the policy then outlined. If my Amendments are carried, the paragraph will read as follows:
Where any such proceedings (not being proceedings the institution of which was barred by the Indemnity Act, 1920, or any other Act) were instituted before the seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, any order made therein for the payment of costs to the person by whom the proceedings were instituted shall continue to have effect and shall be treated as being an order for payment of all costs, charges, and expenses as between solicitor and own client of and incidental to the proceedings, and where any such proceedings so instituted are pending at the date of the passing of this Act, the person by whom the proceedings were instituted shall, unless the Court or a Judge of the Court or the tribunal dealing with the case thinks just to order otherwise, be entitled to an order directing payment and, if necessary, taxation of his costs, charges, and expenses of and incidental to the proceedings, other than any such costs, charges, or expenses incurred after the sixth clay of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, as between solicitor and own client.
I think that these words give effect in the best possible way to the object in view, and indemnify those people who took proceedings before the 7th April, 1924, not only for costs as between parties and parties, hut as between parties and own
solicitors, and, moreover, indemnify them of all "charges and expenses of and incidental to the proceedings." I believe these are the widest possible words.

Sir H. NIELD: I readily admit the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to meet the discussion which took place in Committee. I have given notice of a manuscript Amendment, but I would only like to point out to the right, hon. Gentleman that there is just one matter which, when it comes to be dealt with in the cold atmosphere of the Taxing Office, may not be quite in line with what I mean, and what, I believe, the learned Attorney-General means, and that is with regard to the preliminary expenses which are necessary before proceedings are taken. I took exception in Committee to the word "instituted," and I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having told me of the opinion expressed to him as to the special meaning of the word in relation to the Indemnity Act, 1920. I do not find in that Act any express definition, but I am now glad to be assured by the right hon. Gentleman that it is intended to give a complete indemnity against costs to those people who brought their claims and have taken proceedings on them to show that they were really in earnest with regard to the enforcement of them. If it be clearly understood that the preliminary costs in relation to these matters will be dealt with. I have nothing more to say. I hold in my hand a letter from a very distinguished firm of solicitors and Parliamentary agents, who write:
There are, however, a fair number of cases in which the only steps taken have been to prepare and print a Petition of Right, obtain H.M.'s fiat, and serve same on the Solicitor to the Board of Trade, with whom we have made an arrangement that no further step shall he taken on either side, pending the present proceedings in Parliament, and this to be without prejudice to either party.
I take it the intention is to include these costs, and if I have the assurance, as I am quite sure I have, from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, then I shall certainly not attempt to move the manuscript Amendment, and I am perfectly prepared to accept the 7th April, as I believe that will cover all cases, and do justice between the parties.

Mr. WEBB: Perhaps I had better reply at once to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We need not quibble about the words, but I have to be careful that
no question arises in regard to the interval prior to or after the date of the proceedings that are covered by Clause 1, Sub-section (2), of the Indemnity Act of 1920. That is one point. Also I must point out, to be quite candid, this does not apply to any costs in the case of anyone who may have instituted a claim which is barred by the Indemnity Act to which I have just referred. The intention is that the Act should cover in the fullest possible sense all reasonable charges incurred in connection with proceedings. We have done our utmost to cover all the points in the best possible way which could be done. I should just like to point out, with the permission of the House, that in proceedings instituted during the last 10 days—it must be obvious to the House—the people who started their suits within that time will not be included, though costs will go to the other suitors not already barred by the Indemnity Act.

Sir H. NIELD: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who has relied upon the definition in Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Indemnity Act. The introduction of the words, "incidental to" will, I apprehend, cover all the preliminaries in counsel's opinion, the drawing up of petitions, and so forth. I am quite agreeable to the statement that has just been made by the silt lion Gentleman.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: Before the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is made. I should like to ask, concerning the wards that are in parentheses:—
not being proceedings the institution of which was barred by die indemnity Act, 1920, or other Act.
The Attorney-General knows very well that it is a matter of some difficulty, upon which opinions can very well differ, as to whether particular proceedings are barred by the Indemnity Act or riot. It is a matter of very great complication and involves considerations upon which the arguments may be very nicely balanced. I should like to inquire as to the tribunal or person who will decide whether particular proceedings are or are not barred by the Indemnity Act of 1920. It appears to me to be a matter of some slight difficulty as to how an unfortunate litigant may proceed without involving costs which he may not recover. Suppose someone started proceedings which are not barred by the Indemnity Act and he
gets an order for the payment of the costs which may be interpreted in the large way which will he his right if the proceedings are not barred. Supposing in this case the Government authorities differ and say that the proceedings are barred. Under these circumstances, what has the litigant to do?
It is no good going on with the proceedings because his case is either barred by the Indemnity Act or the War Charges (Validity) Act, and therefore it becomes a purely academic question and this may make the greatest possible difference as to the costs. Under these circumstances is it intended that the litigant should continue his proceedings for the mere purpose of finding out how much costs he is entitled to in order that some Court may say whether his action is barred or not by the Indemnity Act. I think these words are not really necessary, because all that is involved here is an order for the payment of the costs of the plaintiff or the petitioner, and therefore you are not dealing de novo with the costs, but with a position in which the costs order has already been made. I respectfully suggest, in view of the difficulties raised as to the tribunal to decide whether proceedings are barred or not, and as this sub-section only deals with costs already made, the insertion of those words is hardly necessary and I should like the Attorney-General's opinion on this point.

Mr. WEBB: I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the latter part deals with persons who are entitled to an order. The intention is that it shall apply to people who have not got an order, and any person in doubt who thinks he is entitled to costs is authorised to apply for an order giving him his costs. We must, however, put upon the Court the duty of deciding whether he is entitled or not. I must point out that, in endeavouring to meet the wishes that were expressed for costs up to a late date instead of 1922, we had to protect ourselves in this way. It is impossible to give costs to everyone who has brought a suit against the Crown right up to the 6th April, unless you do bar out those people who have brought suits against the Crown after the latest date to which they were entitled under the Indemnity Act. You cannot
have it both ways. In answer to many objections, we are now prepared to give costs right up to the 6th April 1924, and, therefore, we must bar out those people who had no right to bring an action after the 1st September, 1922, and whose right to bring an action has, in fact, been negatived by the case already decided by a Judge of the High Court. You cannot have the two points—both the late date and the opportunity for everyone to bring suits against the Crown—and I venture to think that this is the larger interpretation, on the whole, of the two.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to reply to the objection raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip), because it may he that the insertion of the words
not being proceedings the institution of which was barred by the Indemnity Act, 1920,
will involve the parties in a good deal of difficulty, and really, if the right hon. Gentleman were not so pressed by the officials, of his Department, I think he would say that they are unnecessary. He must, I feel, concede that it is difficult to say whether the proceedings are or are not barred by the Act of Indemnity. I am sure that his colleague, the Attorney-General, will not dispute that this is a problem which tests the ingenuity of a great many people concerned in the law, and it is very difficult to slay what the answer would be. I would point out what. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol did point out, namely, that the Government, really, are amply protected by the provisions of the Bill as reported from the Committee, because he will observe, if he looks at paragraph (ii) of the proviso to Clause 1, that the party applying for his costs is only to get his costs unless the Court or tribunal dealing with the case thinks it just to order otherwise. What T want to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope it will commend itself to him, is this: Of course, if a person has brought a petition of right in a case where the proceedings are clearly barred by the Indemnity Act, and if the proceedings are futile proceedings, which obviously would be barred, then I think you may trust the Court or tribunal to say that if a person has
brought a purely speculative action, or one which he must have known, or which any counsel or solicitor could have told him, is barred, it is not just that he should have his costs; and, therefore, trusting to the Court or tribunal, you may be sure he will be deprived of his costs. But if there were a case where really there is a matter of doubt, where it is ambiguous, and where really a person might think that his claim was not barred by the Indemnity Act, then, in that case, I do submit., and I think probably it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, that he ought to get his costs, and that, therefore, the insertion of these words is unnecessary. They defeat the person who ought to get his costs. They are not necessary in the cases where the party bringing the proceedings ought to be deprived of his costs.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed: On page 2, lines 39 and 40, leave out the words "first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-two," and insert instead thereof the words "seventh day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four."—[Mr. Webb.]

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This is a very large change. Whereas the date fixed in the Bill was 1st September, 1922, the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to bring that date right forward till 7th April, 1924, the date on which the Financial Resolution was taken. I should have been in a little doubt as to whether this was, strictly speaking, in order because I should have thought it might be open to doubt whether it was not an increased charge upon the taxpayer because it is obvious that under the Amendment the taxpayer is going to be called upon to find possibly a larger sum of money than he would have under the Bill as originally introduced. It is a very debatable point of order, however, and I understand there is good ground for thinking there is a balance of authority in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I do not in any sense take the point of order, but I wish to ask this question. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any estimate at all as to what the extra sum likely to be involved in this alteration of the date is? He must have set aside some sort of sum of money as being likely to be involved by the alteration of the date.

Mr. WEBB: Frankly I cannot, and for a very good reason. The date was put in merely to limit the number of suits. It does not limit the amount of costs incurred by them. By altering the date to 7th April we appear to be letting in some more suits, but in return we are excluding those suits which are barred by the Indemnity Act, and consequently we do not think we are increasing the charge at all. At least it is very doubtful whether we are increasing the charge. But we are providing for the possible hard cases to which our attention was drawn on the previous occasion. In order to make sure that we are not inflicting any hardship we have, in response to requests of hon. Members, made this arrangement admitting potential suits. My hon. Friend asks whether this Amendment is in Order. The Money Resolution authorises this Bill as a charge upon the Exchequer, but really the Bill cuts down the amount of the total charge on the Exchequer, so that the question of Order does not arise. I hope the House will now let me get this Clause, because it is the fruit of the combined wisdom of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, lines 3 and 4, leave out the words "costs as between solicitor and own client," and insert instead thereof the words
all costs, charges, and expenses Os between solicitor and own client of and incidental to the proceedings."—[Mr. Webb.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I have a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), but I understand that it is not now required.

Sir H. NIELD: I do not move it.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 5, after the word "any" insert the word "such."—[Mr. Webb.]

Mr. WEBB: I beg to move in page 3, line 5, after the word "instituted," to insert the words
not being proceedings the institution of which was barred as aforesaid.
This manuscript Amendment is inserted for the purpose of giving greater clearness to the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 11, after the word "payment," insert the words "and, if necessary, taxation."

In lines 11 and 12, leave out the words "of the proceedings" and insert instead thereof the words
charges and expenses of and incidental to the proceedings, other than any such costs, charges, or expenses incurred after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twentyfour."—[Mr. Webb.]

Bill to be read the Third time upon Wednesday.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Freshwater Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the, 21st May and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move
That the draft of a Special Order, proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act. 1920, on the application of the Harpenden District Gas Company, which was presented on the 20th May and published, be approved.

Sir H. NIELD: I think that we should have some explanation as to this Order.

Mr. ALEXANDER: All I can say is that this Order has been dealt with in the usual way, and there is no question of any opposition by any of the parties concerned.

Sir H. NIELD: Is it a fact that considerable objection was raised to the works proposed to be carried out by parties in front of whose premises the
mains are to be laid? I think that it would be worth the hon. Gentleman's while to refer to his Department, and bring the matter up again.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I understand that all the objections raised have been settled, but, if the House desires, the matter can be withdrawn for the present and brought up again.

Sir H. NIELD: Certainly. I must press my objection.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Urban District Council of Poulton-le-Fylde, which was presented on the 16th May and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Should I be in order in referring to Order No. 34. the Distressed Tenants Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot deal with that matter now.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.